Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
Yes. And see the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. It was not guaranteed that Lincoln would sign that
Here is Lincoln writing in August 1862
"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it"
The point is that the Southern states seceded because they feared that Lincoln's election threatened the status of slavery in the existing slave states, rather than merely threatening the extension of slavery in new territories, which was Lincoln's stated position. Once they seceded and started attacking Federal troops Lincoln fought to preserve the Union, and only later used the context of the war to abolish slavery everywhere. But without a doubt the split between North and South which precipitated Lincoln's election and secession was over the issue of slavery, an issue which had been becoming increasingly prominent as a source of division and conflict through events such as the Dred Scott case and bleeding Kansas. Both North and South had come to see the question of slavery as elemental, existential, even. Without slavery there would have been no war.
In my original comment which started this, I said:
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
You all seem to be fighting some wraith in your head, not what I am actually saying
You are defending Haley by saying that she said the war was about secession, when she didn't! You then pulled out this Lincoln Quote from 1862 to argue that the war wasn't about slavery. That was what I responded to.
“A former GOP candidate for Pennsylvania lieutenant governor and leader of a political action committee that fueled conservative opposition to school boards has been charged with assault after allegedly punching a teenager at a boozy birthday party she threw for her 17-year-old daughter.”
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Not really, she doesn't mention secession either, just starts wittering on about capitalism and freedom of religion. What a lot of vacuous nonsense. Kind of odd that a former Governor of South Carolina - the first of the states to seceed and the place the Civil War started - seems so entirely ignorant about it. Presumably she didn't want to upset the Republican base - the kind of people who think the wrong side won in 1865.
I'm not defending her, just pointing out that there is a strict historical interpretation of her opinion which validates her. The US Civil War began "officially" over complex constitutional arguments re the rights of states, and their freedom to secede, however the ultimate argument underlying all that was absolutely about slavery
And I agree that she is an idiot not to mention slavery, for those reasons
How is there a strict interpretation of her opinion. Not only did she not mention slavery, she also didn't mention secession. You can't defend her with a point she didn't make. I mean that is utter nonsense. You are putting your words into her mouth. She didn't say secession or slavery. She just wibbled nonsense.
YES, I SAID THAT IN MY ORIGINAL COMMENT
I said she was "deeply foolish" in her words on camera
Digging a hole once more I see. Quote you 'there is a strict historical interpretation of her opinion'. That being secession. At no point did she express an opinion about secession at all. She never mentioned it. She never got anywhere near it.You put those words in. Not her. She just uttered unrelated gibberish.
So quoting you - how was she 'technically right', when she never got near the topic of secession?
Your ability to read things into stuff or misrepresent is awesome.
I am afraid it is dullards like you that are driving others like me off this site
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
Abraham Lincoln:
A house divided against itself, cannot stand.
I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.
That was when he was standing for the Senate (and lost). It was also a source of Southern fear after his election. But, as President, he was very careful to remain within the Constitution which did not give him the right to abolish slavery but did give him the power, indeed the duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (unlike, say, Trump).
Of course the underlying cause of the war was the differing views on slavery, no one seriously disputes that. But Lincoln, who led a deeply unstable and incoherent coalition with brilliance throughout the war in the face of many set backs was very careful of his ground, whatever his personal views were.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Not really, she doesn't mention secession either, just starts wittering on about capitalism and freedom of religion. What a lot of vacuous nonsense. Kind of odd that a former Governor of South Carolina - the first of the states to seceed and the place the Civil War started - seems so entirely ignorant about it. Presumably she didn't want to upset the Republican base - the kind of people who think the wrong side won in 1865.
I'm not defending her, just pointing out that there is a strict historical interpretation of her opinion which validates her. The US Civil War began "officially" over complex constitutional arguments re the rights of states, and their freedom to secede, however the ultimate argument underlying all that was absolutely about slavery.
reasons
No it didn’t. The war began because the South fired on a federal fort. Prior to that there were lengthy attempts at negotiation.
And the arguments weren’t complex; they were, as the declarations of secession make clear, pretty simple.
I think PB was probably more interesting about 5 or 10 years ago. A wider range of posters and views.
Absolutely. It has become a lefty liberal echo chamber, full of pale Wokeness, and a not particularly bright one at that. Unable to argue fine points, surprisingly ill-informed at times, just moralising and wittering
I guess this is natural as the electoral cycle swings left, that lefties predominate, but it also feels like something additional has happened: too many interesting, disparate and unusual views have disappeared, the intellectual tempo has dropped, badly
I write this with real sadness. But I am close to going for good, I am sure that will please many
Oh FFS just do it already. Like Tennant you are hanging round like a bad smell in desperate need to regenerate into something fabulous.
Perhaps your next incarnation won't think it is right and everyone else is wrong. Many of us disagree with each other. Profoundly. But we get on with it. If you want to flounce, do so already.
I think PB was probably more interesting about 5 or 10 years ago. A wider range of posters and views.
Absolutely. It has become a lefty liberal echo chamber, full of pale Wokeness, and a not particularly bright one at that. Unable to argue fine points, surprisingly ill-informed at times, just moralising and wittering
I guess this is natural as the electoral cycle swings left, that lefties predominate, but it also feels like something additional has happened: too many interesting, disparate and unusual views have disappeared, the intellectual tempo has dropped, badly
I write this with real sadness. But I am close to going for good, I am sure that will please many
Oh FFS just do it already. Like Tennant you are hanging round like a bad smell in desperate need to regenerate into something fabulous.
Perhaps your next incarnation won't think it is right and everyone else is wrong. Many of us disagree with each other. Profoundly. But we get on with it. If you want to flounce, do so already.
I think PB was probably more interesting about 5 or 10 years ago. A wider range of posters and views.
Absolutely. It has become a lefty liberal echo chamber, full of pale Wokeness, and a not particularly bright one at that. Unable to argue fine points, surprisingly ill-informed at times, just moralising and wittering
I guess this is natural as the electoral cycle swings left, that lefties predominate, but it also feels like something additional has happened: too many interesting, disparate and unusual views have disappeared, the intellectual tempo has dropped, badly
I write this with real sadness. But I am close to going for good, I am sure that will please many
I love how you come out with the "I'm brighter than you all' line yet again at the point where you have had the logic of your post ripped to shreads. Classic. I mean it is not as if it is particularly advanced logic to see the flaw in your argument and several have pointed it out.
I think PB was probably more interesting about 5 or 10 years ago. A wider range of posters and views.
Absolutely. It has become a lefty liberal echo chamber, full of pale Wokeness, and a not particularly bright one at that. Unable to argue fine points, surprisingly ill-informed at times, just moralising and wittering
I guess this is natural as the electoral cycle swings left, that lefties predominate, but it also feels like something additional has happened: too many interesting, disparate and unusual views have disappeared, the intellectual tempo has dropped, badly
I write this with real sadness. But I am close to going for good, I am sure that will please many
If someone was against sacrificing birds in a cleansing ritual that countered sinful behaviours, and they carried out “direct action” freeing all the birds so people selling them were out of pocket - would you call that Woke?
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
The Symmetrical War Aims Fallacy.
The idea that the two sides in a war have symmetrical aims. They nearly never do.
The South was fighting to preserve the *future* of slavery. They believed that if they didn’t control the government of the US, the North would gradually strangle slavery. If nothing else, bury not letting them expand to the new land they needed.
The North fought, initially, to preserve the Union. It was only later in the war that abolishing slavery became the majority view in the North - the Abolitionists were joined by the Anti-Slavery advocates, who went from only wanting to keep slavery out of the free states, to abolition. This was because slavery became associated with disunion and treason - a moral poison to the nation.
If the South hadn’t fought, slavery would have lasted much, much longer.
I think PB was probably more interesting about 5 or 10 years ago. A wider range of posters and views.
Absolutely. It has become a lefty liberal echo chamber, full of pale Wokeness, and a not particularly bright one at that. Unable to argue fine points, surprisingly ill-informed at times, just moralising and wittering
I guess this is natural as the electoral cycle swings left, that lefties predominate, but it also feels like something additional has happened: too many interesting, disparate and unusual views have disappeared, the intellectual tempo has dropped, badly
I write this with real sadness. But I am close to going for good, I am sure that will please many
Oh FFS just do it already. Like Tennant you are hanging round like a bad smell in desperate need to regenerate into something fabulous.
Perhaps your next incarnation won't think it is right and everyone else is wrong. Many of us disagree with each other. Profoundly. But we get on with it. If you want to flounce, do so already.
You sound like some wazzock with a GB News show. An endless tirade against the world, shaking your fist at the moon. You have opinions - wonderful. We all do. And sometimes those are backed by facts, sometimes not.
Politics is being broken by absolutism. And you are one of the worst of the absolutists. But not political absolutism. Personal. Other posters have an ideological position they defend robustly. I often disagree passionately but I respect the position.
What is your position? That you are right and everyone else is both wrong and stupid. You sound like that fake pastor guy with the hair. What's the point? Chill the fuck out and accept that like any other person your opinions aren't automatically facts.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Not really, she doesn't mention secession either, just starts wittering on about capitalism and freedom of religion. What a lot of vacuous nonsense. Kind of odd that a former Governor of South Carolina - the first of the states to seceed and the place the Civil War started - seems so entirely ignorant about it. Presumably she didn't want to upset the Republican base - the kind of people who think the wrong side won in 1865.
I'm not defending her, just pointing out that there is a strict historical interpretation of her opinion which validates her. The US Civil War began "officially" over complex constitutional arguments re the rights of states, and their freedom to secede, however the ultimate argument underlying all that was absolutely about slavery
And I agree that she is an idiot not to mention slavery, for those reasons
How is there a strict interpretation of her opinion. Not only did she not mention slavery, she also didn't mention secession. You can't defend her with a point she didn't make. I mean that is utter nonsense. You are putting your words into her mouth. She didn't say secession or slavery. She just wibbled nonsense.
YES, I SAID THAT IN MY ORIGINAL COMMENT
I said she was "deeply foolish" in her words on camera
Digging a hole once more I see. Quote you 'there is a strict historical interpretation of her opinion'. That being secession. At no point did she express an opinion about secession at all. She never mentioned it. She never got anywhere near it.You put those words in. Not her. She just uttered unrelated gibberish.
So quoting you - how was she 'technically right', when she never got near the topic of secession?
Your ability to read things into stuff or misrepresent is awesome.
I am afraid it is dullards like you that are driving others like me off this site
I think PB was probably more interesting about 5 or 10 years ago. A wider range of posters and views.
Absolutely. It has become a lefty liberal echo chamber, full of pale Wokeness, and a not particularly bright one at that. Unable to argue fine points, surprisingly ill-informed at times, just moralising and wittering
I guess this is natural as the electoral cycle swings left, that lefties predominate, but it also feels like something additional has happened: too many interesting, disparate and unusual views have disappeared, the intellectual tempo has dropped, badly
I write this with real sadness. But I am close to going for good, I am sure that will please many
Oh FFS just do it already. Like Tennant you are hanging round like a bad smell in desperate need to regenerate into something fabulous.
Perhaps your next incarnation won't think it is right and everyone else is wrong. Many of us disagree with each other. Profoundly. But we get on with it. If you want to flounce, do so already.
You sound like some wazzock with a GB News show. An endless tirade against the world, shaking your fist at the moon. You have opinions - wonderful. We all do. And sometimes those are backed by facts, sometimes not.
Politics is being broken by absolutism. And you are one of the worst of the absolutists. But not political absolutism. Personal. Other posters have an ideological position they defend robustly. I often disagree passionately but I respect the position.
What is your position? That you are right and everyone else is both wrong and stupid. You sound like that fake pastor guy with the hair. What's the point? Chill the fuck out and accept that like any other person your opinions aren't automatically facts.
I'm 'aving a puff on me Crater 420. It is givin' me insights
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
See my comment below. The war was fought to preserve the Union but the Union was broken over the question of slavery and slavery was thus the cause of the war. Also, Lincoln was being somewhat disingenuous in this comment, IMHO. He knew that it was easier to sell the war on the basis of the Union than over slavery, but as a conviction abolitionist he was very happy to use the war as an opportunity to abolish slavery throughout the Union.
Actually Leon is right in thinking that there's a fair amount of evidence that Lincoln's beliefs evolved significantly during the war.
Though what any leader actually thought at a given time is a matter of conjecture.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
The Symmetrical War Aims Fallacy.
The idea that the two sides in a war have symmetrical aims. They nearly never do.
The South was fighting to preserve the *future* of slavery. They believed that if they didn’t control the government of the US, the North would gradually strangle slavery. If nothing else, bury not letting them expand to the new land they needed.
The North fought, initially, to preserve the Union. It was only later in the war that abolishing slavery became the majority view in the North - the Abolitionists were joined by the Anti-Slavery advocates, who went from only wanting to keep slavery out of the free states, to abolition. This was because slavery became associated with disunion and treason - a moral poison to the nation.
If the South hadn’t fought, slavery would have lasted much, much longer.
I agree. It may eventually have withered, especially if new non slaving states gave a built in anti slavery majority in Congress who would ultimately have reversed Dred Scott, but it would have taken a very long time.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
Abraham Lincoln:
A house divided against itself, cannot stand.
I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.
That was when he was standing for the Senate (and lost). It was also a source of Southern fear after his election. But, as President, he was very careful to remain within the Constitution which did not give him the right to abolish slavery but did give him the power, indeed the duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (unlike, say, Trump).
Of course the underlying cause of the war was the differing views on slavery, no one seriously disputes that. But Lincoln, who led a deeply unstable and incoherent coalition with brilliance throughout the war in the face of many set backs was very careful of his ground, whatever his personal views were.
Yes, Lincoln gave his "house divided" speech in 1858. So what is YOUR point?
Fact that Lincoln would have allowed slavery to continue (but for how long?) in existing slave states IF that would preserve the Union (ditto?) does NOT mean that slavery was NOT the fundamental cause of the Civil War.
Just the opposite.
Argument that South seceded due to something OTHER than slavery, was and still is bunk.
Used to be Lost Cause" Southern apologist bunk. Now right-wing wackjob bunk.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Imagine if she was asked what the cause of The Holocaust was and didn't say Anti-Semitism.
The cause of the Holocaust was the French and the Treaty of Versailles.
I imagine that one went over @Leons head. It appears he is not as bright as he tells us.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Not really, she doesn't mention secession either, just starts wittering on about capitalism and freedom of religion. What a lot of vacuous nonsense. Kind of odd that a former Governor of South Carolina - the first of the states to seceed and the place the Civil War started - seems so entirely ignorant about it. Presumably she didn't want to upset the Republican base - the kind of people who think the wrong side won in 1865.
I'm not defending her, just pointing out that there is a strict historical interpretation of her opinion which validates her. The US Civil War began "officially" over complex constitutional arguments re the rights of states, and their freedom to secede, however the ultimate argument underlying all that was absolutely about slavery.
reasons
No it didn’t. The war began because the South fired on a federal fort. Prior to that there were lengthy attempts at negotiation.
And the arguments weren’t complex; they were, as the declarations of secession make clear, pretty simple.
"Boris Johnson @BorisJohnson Jacques Delors was the pre eminent architect of the modern European Union - and whether you agreed or not with his vision he was a towering political figure.
Without Delors there would have been no Maastricht treaty and no euro. Indeed without Delors there would have been no single market.
He harnessed post Cold War anxieties about Germany to create a new federal structure for Europe - and he did it with dazzling panache
His ideas were never right for Britain - as he himself later seemed to concede - and there are many on the continent who have doubts about the direction of the EU. But no one can doubt his legacy today. Whatever you say about the modern EU - it is the house that Jacques built."
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
Abraham Lincoln:
A house divided against itself, cannot stand.
I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.
That was when he was standing for the Senate (and lost). It was also a source of Southern fear after his election. But, as President, he was very careful to remain within the Constitution which did not give him the right to abolish slavery but did give him the power, indeed the duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (unlike, say, Trump).
Of course the underlying cause of the war was the differing views on slavery, no one seriously disputes that. But Lincoln, who led a deeply unstable and incoherent coalition with brilliance throughout the war in the face of many set backs was very careful of his ground, whatever his personal views were.
Yes, Lincoln gave his "house divided" speech in 1858. So what is YOUR point?
Fact that Lincoln would have allowed slavery to continue (but for how long?) in existing slave states IF that would preserve the Union (ditto?) does NOT mean that slavery was NOT the fundamental cause of the Civil War.
Just the opposite.
Argument that South seceded due to something OTHER than slavery, was and still is bunk.
Used to be Lost Cause" Southern apologist bunk. Now right-wing wackjob bunk.
Jesus Christ stop it
NO ONE is saying "slavery was NOT the fundamental cause of the Civil War"
NO ONE is sayng the "South seceded due to something OTHER than slavery"
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
The Symmetrical War Aims Fallacy.
The idea that the two sides in a war have symmetrical aims. They nearly never do.
The South was fighting to preserve the *future* of slavery. They believed that if they didn’t control the government of the US, the North would gradually strangle slavery. If nothing else, bury not letting them expand to the new land they needed.
The North fought, initially, to preserve the Union. It was only later in the war that abolishing slavery became the majority view in the North - the Abolitionists were joined by the Anti-Slavery advocates, who went from only wanting to keep slavery out of the free states, to abolition. This was because slavery became associated with disunion and treason - a moral poison to the nation.
If the South hadn’t fought, slavery would have lasted much, much longer.
Longer, but not sure much let alone much much.
In his now-dated but still-interesting alternate history, McKinley Kantor opined that post-war Confederacy would have abolished slavery by 1885.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
For a long time I’ve understood the US civil war was about economics.
And what quickly followed, again because of economics, was an east west split.
The idea that the civil war was about economics was largely pro-South propaganda that didn’t want to acknowledge it was about slavery.
Isn’t abolishing slavery, thus hitting those using slave labour in the pocket, an economic argument?
The opposition to slavery was not on economic grounds, but humanitarian ones.
You are absolutely struggling here. Shocking. I even feel embarrassed for you - me and Leon are absolutely wiping the floor with you all, and I’m doing it one handed whilst still drinking gin with the other.
Look at all the African and Arab pirates stealing “white women” from English villages and selling them on at comfortable profit - if you try to argue it’s contrary to your own “moral compass” it’s your sense of morality destroying someone else’s business model, way of life and earning a living.
And then look at all the serfs the lefties tried to free in revolutions, like the Russian Revolution. The serfs said buzz off - we are guaranteed lodging and work, but under your revolution we’ll have to move to the cities, work in dangerous factories for a pittance, and pay board and bills from that pittance. This is true history this is.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
The Symmetrical War Aims Fallacy.
The idea that the two sides in a war have symmetrical aims. They nearly never do.
The South was fighting to preserve the *future* of slavery. They believed that if they didn’t control the government of the US, the North would gradually strangle slavery. If nothing else, bury not letting them expand to the new land they needed.
The North fought, initially, to preserve the Union. It was only later in the war that abolishing slavery became the majority view in the North - the Abolitionists were joined by the Anti-Slavery advocates, who went from only wanting to keep slavery out of the free states, to abolition. This was because slavery became associated with disunion and treason - a moral poison to the nation.
If the South hadn’t fought, slavery would have lasted much, much longer.
I agree. It may eventually have withered, especially if new non slaving states gave a built in anti slavery majority in Congress who would ultimately have reversed Dred Scott, but it would have taken a very long time.
The Fire Eaters were a fascinating example of extremists who couldn’t imagine their opponents were any less extreme.
They were drawing maps with 100 states by 1900 - the Evul North would split states* and turn all the territories into tiny states full of anti-slavery migrants to overwhelm the Noble South and her beloved Peculiar Institution.
*hence the Texas option to split - as a reply to this bizarre future fever-dream.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
See my comment below. The war was fought to preserve the Union but the Union was broken over the question of slavery and slavery was thus the cause of the war. Also, Lincoln was being somewhat disingenuous in this comment, IMHO. He knew that it was easier to sell the war on the basis of the Union than over slavery, but as a conviction abolitionist he was very happy to use the war as an opportunity to abolish slavery throughout the Union.
Actually Leon is right in thinking that there's a fair amount of evidence that Lincoln's beliefs evolved significantly during the war.
Though what any leader actually thought at a given time is a matter of conjecture.
That maybe true, but @Leon attempted to spin the comments made by Haley by bringing in the false argument re slavery Vs secession. The fact is Haley didn't mention secession at all or even allude to it so @leon giving her credit for it was just spin that he has been called out on.
Now he has gone off in a huff by doing his usual of claiming he has a massive IQ and looks down on us idiots and then threatens to walk, but never does
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
The Symmetrical War Aims Fallacy.
The idea that the two sides in a war have symmetrical aims. They nearly never do.
The South was fighting to preserve the *future* of slavery. They believed that if they didn’t control the government of the US, the North would gradually strangle slavery. If nothing else, bury not letting them expand to the new land they needed.
The North fought, initially, to preserve the Union. It was only later in the war that abolishing slavery became the majority view in the North - the Abolitionists were joined by the Anti-Slavery advocates, who went from only wanting to keep slavery out of the free states, to abolition. This was because slavery became associated with disunion and treason - a moral poison to the nation.
If the South hadn’t fought, slavery would have lasted much, much longer.
Longer, but not sure much let alone much much.
In his now-dated but still-interesting alternate history, McKinley Kantor opined that post-war Confederacy would have abolished slavery by 1885.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
Abraham Lincoln:
A house divided against itself, cannot stand.
I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.
That was when he was standing for the Senate (and lost). It was also a source of Southern fear after his election. But, as President, he was very careful to remain within the Constitution which did not give him the right to abolish slavery but did give him the power, indeed the duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (unlike, say, Trump).
Of course the underlying cause of the war was the differing views on slavery, no one seriously disputes that. But Lincoln, who led a deeply unstable and incoherent coalition with brilliance throughout the war in the face of many set backs was very careful of his ground, whatever his personal views were.
Yes, Lincoln gave his "house divided" speech in 1858. So what is YOUR point?
Fact that Lincoln would have allowed slavery to continue (but for how long?) in existing slave states IF that would preserve the Union (ditto?) does NOT mean that slavery was NOT the fundamental cause of the Civil War.
Just the opposite.
Argument that South seceded due to something OTHER than slavery, was and still is bunk.
Used to be Lost Cause" Southern apologist bunk. Now right-wing wackjob bunk.
My point is probably best summed up by @Malmesbury's comment. The South were focused on slavery and its preservation is why they attempted to secede. The North's position was far more nuanced. There were many, like Lincoln himself, who considered slavery a moral outrage, there were some who feared slave labour competing with free labour and there were many who really didn't care.
To hold these groups together Lincoln relied upon the Constitution and the powers it gave him to protect the Union. As the war went on and the cost grew ever more appalling, the ending of slavery became a war aim in itself because it was thought that it would destroy the base of the Southern economy. It took a lot of time and a fearful amount of blood for even a leader of Lincoln's eloquence to build that consensus.
His skill at building that consensus is, in my view, the most compelling argument for him to be regarded as the greatest American President. He was incredibly self disciplined in his comments as President as the quote from 1862 I referred to shows all too well.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
See my comment below. The war was fought to preserve the Union but the Union was broken over the question of slavery and slavery was thus the cause of the war. Also, Lincoln was being somewhat disingenuous in this comment, IMHO. He knew that it was easier to sell the war on the basis of the Union than over slavery, but as a conviction abolitionist he was very happy to use the war as an opportunity to abolish slavery throughout the Union.
Actually Leon is right in thinking that there's a fair amount of evidence that Lincoln's beliefs evolved significantly during the war.
Though what any leader actually thought at a given time is a matter of conjecture.
That maybe true, but @Leon attempted to spin the comments made by Haley by bringing in the false argument re slavery Vs secession. The fact is Haley didn't mention secession at all or even allude to it so @leon giving her credit for it was just spin that he has been called out on.
Now he has gone off in a huff by doing his usual of claiming he has a massive IQ and looks down on us idiots and then threatens to walk, but never does
I think he was just being an edgelord with a “well, actually…” comment on a risqué topic rather than trying to defend Haley’s comments.
"Boris Johnson @BorisJohnson Jacques Delors was the pre eminent architect of the modern European Union - and whether you agreed or not with his vision he was a towering political figure.
Without Delors there would have been no Maastricht treaty and no euro. Indeed without Delors there would have been no single market.
He harnessed post Cold War anxieties about Germany to create a new federal structure for Europe - and he did it with dazzling panache
His ideas were never right for Britain - as he himself later seemed to concede - and there are many on the continent who have doubts about the direction of the EU. But no one can doubt his legacy today. Whatever you say about the modern EU - it is the house that Jacques built."
Impossible to disagree with that surely, even on PB.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
See my comment below. The war was fought to preserve the Union but the Union was broken over the question of slavery and slavery was thus the cause of the war. Also, Lincoln was being somewhat disingenuous in this comment, IMHO. He knew that it was easier to sell the war on the basis of the Union than over slavery, but as a conviction abolitionist he was very happy to use the war as an opportunity to abolish slavery throughout the Union.
Actually Leon is right in thinking that there's a fair amount of evidence that Lincoln's beliefs evolved significantly during the war.
Though what any leader actually thought at a given time is a matter of conjecture.
That maybe true, but @Leon attempted to spin the comments made by Haley by bringing in the false argument re slavery Vs secession. The fact is Haley didn't mention secession at all or even allude to it so @leon giving her credit for it was just spin that he has been called out on.
Now he has gone off in a huff by doing his usual of claiming he has a massive IQ and looks down on us idiots and then threatens to walk, but never does
I think he was just being an edgelord with a “well, actually…” comment on a risqué topic rather than trying to defend Haley’s comments.
I think I agree with that. Didn't work out well for him did it? Underestimated his audience I think.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
See my comment below. The war was fought to preserve the Union but the Union was broken over the question of slavery and slavery was thus the cause of the war. Also, Lincoln was being somewhat disingenuous in this comment, IMHO. He knew that it was easier to sell the war on the basis of the Union than over slavery, but as a conviction abolitionist he was very happy to use the war as an opportunity to abolish slavery throughout the Union.
Actually Leon is right in thinking that there's a fair amount of evidence that Lincoln's beliefs evolved significantly during the war.
Though what any leader actually thought at a given time is a matter of conjecture.
That maybe true, but @Leon attempted to spin the comments made by Haley by bringing in the false argument re slavery Vs secession. The fact is Haley didn't mention secession at all or even allude to it so @leon giving her credit for it was just spin that he has been called out on.
Now he has gone off in a huff by doing his usual of claiming he has a massive IQ and looks down on us idiots and then threatens to walk, but never does
TBF, a bit of spin is not a huge deal worth derailing the thread for. It’s not as though it’s convinced anyone.
"Boris Johnson @BorisJohnson Jacques Delors was the pre eminent architect of the modern European Union - and whether you agreed or not with his vision he was a towering political figure.
Without Delors there would have been no Maastricht treaty and no euro. Indeed without Delors there would have been no single market.
He harnessed post Cold War anxieties about Germany to create a new federal structure for Europe - and he did it with dazzling panache
His ideas were never right for Britain - as he himself later seemed to concede - and there are many on the continent who have doubts about the direction of the EU. But no one can doubt his legacy today. Whatever you say about the modern EU - it is the house that Jacques built."
Impossible to disagree with that surely, even on PB.
I disagree. He doesn’t mention the huge influence and assistance the UKs Conservative Party made to the creation of the Single Market.
The EU’s Single Market is definitely one of Lady Thatcher and her governments greatest achievements.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
See my comment below. The war was fought to preserve the Union but the Union was broken over the question of slavery and slavery was thus the cause of the war. Also, Lincoln was being somewhat disingenuous in this comment, IMHO. He knew that it was easier to sell the war on the basis of the Union than over slavery, but as a conviction abolitionist he was very happy to use the war as an opportunity to abolish slavery throughout the Union.
Actually Leon is right in thinking that there's a fair amount of evidence that Lincoln's beliefs evolved significantly during the war.
Though what any leader actually thought at a given time is a matter of conjecture.
Lincoln was born in Kentucky, a slave state. His family moved to Indiana, a free state, in large measure due to his father's dislike of slavery.
Young Lincoln's personal antipathy to slavery began - or more like was solidified - by witnessing slavery up close during rafting trip down to New Orleans.
Perhaps worth noting, that one of his most notable actions during his short service as an congressman, was opposing the annexation of Texas and subsequent war with Mexico - on grounds that they meant expanding slavery within the United States.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
See my comment below. The war was fought to preserve the Union but the Union was broken over the question of slavery and slavery was thus the cause of the war. Also, Lincoln was being somewhat disingenuous in this comment, IMHO. He knew that it was easier to sell the war on the basis of the Union than over slavery, but as a conviction abolitionist he was very happy to use the war as an opportunity to abolish slavery throughout the Union.
Actually Leon is right in thinking that there's a fair amount of evidence that Lincoln's beliefs evolved significantly during the war.
Though what any leader actually thought at a given time is a matter of conjecture.
That maybe true, but @Leon attempted to spin the comments made by Haley by bringing in the false argument re slavery Vs secession. The fact is Haley didn't mention secession at all or even allude to it so @leon giving her credit for it was just spin that he has been called out on.
Now he has gone off in a huff by doing his usual of claiming he has a massive IQ and looks down on us idiots and then threatens to walk, but never does
I think he was just being an edgelord with a “well, actually…” comment on a risqué topic rather than trying to defend Haley’s comments.
I think I agree with that. Didn't work out well for him did it? Underestimated his audience I think.
"Boris Johnson @BorisJohnson Jacques Delors was the pre eminent architect of the modern European Union - and whether you agreed or not with his vision he was a towering political figure.
Without Delors there would have been no Maastricht treaty and no euro. Indeed without Delors there would have been no single market.
He harnessed post Cold War anxieties about Germany to create a new federal structure for Europe - and he did it with dazzling panache
His ideas were never right for Britain - as he himself later seemed to concede - and there are many on the continent who have doubts about the direction of the EU. But no one can doubt his legacy today. Whatever you say about the modern EU - it is the house that Jacques built."
Impossible to disagree with that surely, even on PB.
I disagree. He doesn’t mention the huge influence and assistance the UKs Conservative Party made to the creation of the Single Market.
The EU’s Single Market is definitely one of Lady Thatcher and her governments greatest achievements.
Excellent. You restore my faith in the site. (And, FWIW, I agree that Thatcher and in particular Leon Brittain played a major role but it would not have happened with Delors vision and drive.)
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
See my comment below. The war was fought to preserve the Union but the Union was broken over the question of slavery and slavery was thus the cause of the war. Also, Lincoln was being somewhat disingenuous in this comment, IMHO. He knew that it was easier to sell the war on the basis of the Union than over slavery, but as a conviction abolitionist he was very happy to use the war as an opportunity to abolish slavery throughout the Union.
Actually Leon is right in thinking that there's a fair amount of evidence that Lincoln's beliefs evolved significantly during the war.
Though what any leader actually thought at a given time is a matter of conjecture.
Lincoln was born in Kentucky, a slave state. His family moved to Indiana, a free state, in large measure due to his father's dislike of slavery.
Young Lincoln's personal antipathy to slavery began - or more like was solidified - by witnessing slavery up close during rafting trip down to New Orleans.
Perhaps worth noting, that one of his most notable actions during his short service as an congressman, was opposing the annexation of Texas and subsequent war with Mexico - on grounds that they meant expanding slavery within the United States.
Yes, I don’t think there was ever much doubt where he stood in that respect.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
Slavery was, explicitly, why the Southern states seceded.
Yes, I said that in the comment to which you are replying
"Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession"
I completely agree with you on this one. Lincoln was extremely careful to define the war by reference to the protection of the Union of the United States because that gave him the legal authority to do much of what he did. It wasn't until the Gettysburg Address in November 1863 when he became more explicit about slavery
That started: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
No, the cause of the US Civil War was slavery, end of story.
Lincoln in 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
But what would he know about it?
Abraham Lincoln:
A house divided against itself, cannot stand.
I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.
That was when he was standing for the Senate (and lost). It was also a source of Southern fear after his election. But, as President, he was very careful to remain within the Constitution which did not give him the right to abolish slavery but did give him the power, indeed the duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (unlike, say, Trump).
Of course the underlying cause of the war was the differing views on slavery, no one seriously disputes that. But Lincoln, who led a deeply unstable and incoherent coalition with brilliance throughout the war in the face of many set backs was very careful of his ground, whatever his personal views were.
Yes, Lincoln gave his "house divided" speech in 1858. So what is YOUR point?
Fact that Lincoln would have allowed slavery to continue (but for how long?) in existing slave states IF that would preserve the Union (ditto?) does NOT mean that slavery was NOT the fundamental cause of the Civil War.
Just the opposite.
Argument that South seceded due to something OTHER than slavery, was and still is bunk.
Used to be Lost Cause" Southern apologist bunk. Now right-wing wackjob bunk.
My point is probably best summed up by @Malmesbury's comment. The South were focused on slavery and its preservation is why they attempted to secede. The North's position was far more nuanced. There were many, like Lincoln himself, who considered slavery a moral outrage, there were some who feared slave labour competing with free labour and there were many who really didn't care.
To hold these groups together Lincoln relied upon the Constitution and the powers it gave him to protect the Union. As the war went on and the cost grew ever more appalling, the ending of slavery became a war aim in itself because it was thought that it would destroy the base of the Southern economy. It took a lot of time and a fearful amount of blood for even a leader of Lincoln's eloquence to build that consensus.
His skill at building that consensus is, in my view, the most compelling argument for him to be regarded as the greatest American President. He was incredibly self disciplined in his comments as President as the quote from 1862 I referred to shows all too well.
You, and others, are correct that ending slavery was NOT an initial Union war aim, and that Lincoln spent a LOT of time and effort reassuring slave owners and others in Upper South including Border states of that.
Also true that initial response across North responding to Lincoln's call for volunteers after Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, was motivated (for most) by desire to preserve the Union, and NOT to overthrow slavery. Certainly the case in Lincoln's own Downstate Illinois.
AND that thing and aims and perspectives changed considerably over the course of the war.
You say that "Lincoln relied on the Constitution and the powers that it gave him" which is true in broad outline but hardly covers the waterfront, let alone the battlefield.
What Lincoln did, was to test the envelope of the Constitution like no POTUS before him, and few since. Including such actions as temporary suppression of Maryland legislature, deportation of anti-war Ohio congressman to Canada, and creation of the State of West Virginia to name just a few.
Being a lawyer, Abe knew just what he was doing. And did it, for what he regarded as the best of reasons, within the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution.
Why are American politicians talking (or not talking) about slavery, when it should be left to historians to talk and write about it?
In general
Our history is what we are. Americans suffer from this as much as we do, although they say they do not. We didn't wake up this morning new-formed, we inherited thoughts and concepts from the past that influence our actions in the present.
In specific
There's been a tussle over American history for some time and it's politicised. Whether the ACW was driven by states' rights or slavery is part of that tussle, and the question to Nikki Haley should be seen in that context. It was meant to identify on which side of the tussle she sat, and it seems to have worked.
Off topic, but important for anyone who bets on American politics: "A new study from Syracuse University’s Newhouse School of Public Communications found that just 3.4% of American journalists are Republicans. . . . . When the first iteration of the study came out over 50 years ago, 35.5% of respondents said they were Democrats, 25.7% said they were Republicans, and 32.5% said they were Independents. The percentage that call themselves Democrats or independents have bounced around over the years, with the proportion of Democrats reaching a high of 44.1% in 1992." source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/study-finds-that-just-3-4-of-american-journalists-are-republicans/ar-AA1m6Tf6?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=41d2edafd0ec40a09c509a2a259194a1&ei=175
Humans being what we are, you should not expect unbiased coverage of American politics from most American journalists.
(As it happens, our local monopoly newspaper, the Seattle Times, provides many good examples of this problem. From time to time I see pieces in the newspaper that read like satires, they are so far into current leftist thinking.)
Well, this is the long echo of the 40-year strategy to wage war on modernity and anything resembling intellectualism. If the woke Democrats are ever as successful, I'm sure a similar backlash would follow in the long term too, but when your party tries to make schools praise the benefits of slavery while banning discussions of homosexuality, you will pay a price among people who think differently.
The most interesting thing about Trumpism, the current dominant philosophy in the GOP, is that there's no thinking man's case for it. I can't think of that ever being the situation for one of the two big parties in a major Western democracy.
I don't know whether in any sense PB is a barometer, but IIRC there isn't a single person commenting here who will defend or support Trumpism.
And, maybe I'm sheltered, but I don't where where I would go for a reasoned defence of Trump, what he has done or what he stands for. (Of course there are people who can give a reasoned explanation, but they are always giving a explanation of why people are acting wrongly or badly).
There was a point in time that his foreign policy seemed reasonably successful: facing up to China and Iran, securing multiple peace agreements between Israel and various Arab states.
But that was then and this is now. Nothing can justify Jan 6 or his transparent desire to replace the Republic
There's an old saying that you should talk softly but carry a big stick. He followed the opposite strategy: yelling a lot, while being unwilling to actually risk anything.
He was also far too susceptible to flattery, and thought that personal relationships - i.e. people being friendly to him personally - would overcome entrenched national interests.
Did he actually make progress with the North Koreans? Or did they play him like a fiddle? Did he make the invasion of Ukraine more or less likely? Did his "trade war" with China achieve anything?
Those are fair criticisms. I think yelling about NATO spending highlighted the freeloading that was going on, but weakened the Atlantic Alliance. He was played by North Korea and embarrassing on Russia. But the Ukrainian invasion was under Biden - as he and Obama had let Putin get away with it first time round.
The China trade war has been important - Biden has continued and strengthened the focus (eg on TikTok).
But having just read American Kleptocracy (highly recommended by the way on the weaknesses of American money laundering regulations - I take nerdiness to a whole new level @AverageNinja ) it is just depressing what he undid on that front
Especially since her immediate prospects at the start of the New Year depend on her electoral performance in Iowa and New Hampshire - two of the Whitest states in the US. (Indeed that's reason why Democrats advanced South Carolina and Nevada ahead of the historic "first in the nation" states.
Speaking of the Palmetto State, think that Haley answered (intially) more like a South Carolina politico than a national politico. Itself an error at this stage of play.
Especially since her immediate prospects at the start of the New Year depend on her electoral performance in Iowa and New Hampshire - two of the Whitest states in the US. (Indeed that's reason why Democrats advanced South Carolina and Nevada ahead of the historic "first in the nation" states.
Speaking of the Palmetto State, think that Haley answered (intially) more like a South Carolina politico than a national politico. Itself an error at this stage of play.
Yes, the headline is a little dramatic. And it still comes down to this: if Trump isn’t the nominee, who remains ?
Especially since her immediate prospects at the start of the New Year depend on her electoral performance in Iowa and New Hampshire - two of the Whitest states in the US. (Indeed that's reason why Democrats advanced South Carolina and Nevada ahead of the historic "first in the nation" states.
Speaking of the Palmetto State, think that Haley answered (intially) more like a South Carolina politico than a national politico. Itself an error at this stage of play.
Yes, the headline is a little dramatic. And it still comes down to this: if Trump isn’t the nominee, who remains ?
Gaffe(s) ain't good.
But it may help Nikki Haley, even with Republicans of Color (still a small if growing group) that she was the Governor who took down the Confederate battle flag at the South Carolina State House and kept it down.
Off topic, but important for anyone who bets on American politics: "A new study from Syracuse University’s Newhouse School of Public Communications found that just 3.4% of American journalists are Republicans. . . . . When the first iteration of the study came out over 50 years ago, 35.5% of respondents said they were Democrats, 25.7% said they were Republicans, and 32.5% said they were Independents. The percentage that call themselves Democrats or independents have bounced around over the years, with the proportion of Democrats reaching a high of 44.1% in 1992." source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/study-finds-that-just-3-4-of-american-journalists-are-republicans/ar-AA1m6Tf6?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=41d2edafd0ec40a09c509a2a259194a1&ei=175
Humans being what we are, you should not expect unbiased coverage of American politics from most American journalists.
(As it happens, our local monopoly newspaper, the Seattle Times, provides many good examples of this problem. From time to time I see pieces in the newspaper that read like satires, they are so far into current leftist thinking.)
Well, this is the long echo of the 40-year strategy to wage war on modernity and anything resembling intellectualism. If the woke Democrats are ever as successful, I'm sure a similar backlash would follow in the long term too, but when your party tries to make schools praise the benefits of slavery while banning discussions of homosexuality, you will pay a price among people who think differently.
The most interesting thing about Trumpism, the current dominant philosophy in the GOP, is that there's no thinking man's case for it. I can't think of that ever being the situation for one of the two big parties in a major Western democracy.
I don't know whether in any sense PB is a barometer, but IIRC there isn't a single person commenting here who will defend or support Trumpism.
And, maybe I'm sheltered, but I don't where where I would go for a reasoned defence of Trump, what he has done or what he stands for. (Of course there are people who can give a reasoned explanation, but they are always giving a explanation of why people are acting wrongly or badly).
There was a point in time that his foreign policy seemed reasonably successful: facing up to China and Iran, securing multiple peace agreements between Israel and various Arab states.
But that was then and this is now. Nothing can justify Jan 6 or his transparent desire to replace the Republic
There's an old saying that you should talk softly but carry a big stick. He followed the opposite strategy: yelling a lot, while being unwilling to actually risk anything.
He was also far too susceptible to flattery, and thought that personal relationships - i.e. people being friendly to him personally - would overcome entrenched national interests.
Did he actually make progress with the North Koreans? Or did they play him like a fiddle? Did he make the invasion of Ukraine more or less likely? Did his "trade war" with China achieve anything?
Those are fair criticisms. I think yelling about NATO spending highlighted the freeloading that was going on, but weakened the Atlantic Alliance. He was played by North Korea and embarrassing on Russia. But the Ukrainian invasion was under Biden - as he and Obama had let Putin get away with it first time round.
The China trade war has been important - Biden has continued and strengthened the focus (eg on TikTok).
But having just read American Kleptocracy (highly recommended by the way on the weaknesses of American money laundering regulations - I take nerdiness to a whole new level @AverageNinja ) it is just depressing what he undid on that front
Biden’s efforts to rebuild US manufacturing are perhaps his most consequential moves to counter China - alongside some quite draconian high tech trade embargoes. Greatly under appreciated by his political opponents, I think ?
I think the word "novel" here denotes a narrative with fictional characters which may remind the reader of real people/types but are nevertheless original independent creations.
This would differentiate it from his earlier work where real people and events were described in a literary manner. John Glenn is a real person. Sherman McCoy is not.
Especially since her immediate prospects at the start of the New Year depend on her electoral performance in Iowa and New Hampshire - two of the Whitest states in the US. (Indeed that's reason why Democrats advanced South Carolina and Nevada ahead of the historic "first in the nation" states.
Speaking of the Palmetto State, think that Haley answered (intially) more like a South Carolina politico than a national politico. Itself an error at this stage of play.
Yes, the headline is a little dramatic. And it still comes down to this: if Trump isn’t the nominee, who remains ?
Gaffe(s) ain't good.
But it may help Nikki Haley, even with Republicans of Color (still a small if growing group) that she was the Governor who took down the Confederate battle flag at the South Carolina State House and kept it down.
In that context it was an odd misstep. Up until now, she’s been fairly adroit.
Regarding Lincoln’s pre-war views on slavery, the Cooper Union speech is pretty clear (and has some trademark snark).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Union_speech … Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us ...
Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively…
Regarding Lincoln’s pre-war views on slavery, the Cooper Union speech is pretty clear (and has some trademark snark).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Union_speech … Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us ...
Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively…
One of the few truly great, and truly consequential speeches in history.
This piece might well be applied to Trump’s party today: .. Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events…
Especially since her immediate prospects at the start of the New Year depend on her electoral performance in Iowa and New Hampshire - two of the Whitest states in the US. (Indeed that's reason why Democrats advanced South Carolina and Nevada ahead of the historic "first in the nation" states.
Speaking of the Palmetto State, think that Haley answered (intially) more like a South Carolina politico than a national politico. Itself an error at this stage of play.
Yes, the headline is a little dramatic. And it still comes down to this: if Trump isn’t the nominee, who remains ?
Gaffe(s) ain't good.
But it may help Nikki Haley, even with Republicans of Color (still a small if growing group) that she was the Governor who took down the Confederate battle flag at the South Carolina State House and kept it down.
In that context it was an odd misstep. Up until now, she’s been fairly adroit.
Nikki Haley clearly had a bad day on the campaign trail.
Question for her, at this stage as serious POTUS contender, is - can she prevent it from becoming a bad week?
My guess is probably yes.
She gave an answer that was OK in SC statewide politics, but not-OK for US national politics.
Though this bothers media, pundits, operatives more than it does most actual/prospective Republican caucus/primary voters.
I think the word "novel" here denotes a narrative with fictional characters which may remind the reader of real people/types but are nevertheless original independent creations.
This would differentiate it from his earlier work where real people and events were described in a literary manner. John Glenn is a real person. Sherman McCoy is not.
My own thought, better said.
With Tom Wolfe, boundary between fact & fancy can be difficult to demarcate, but that was major part of his style, schtick and success.
I think the word "novel" here denotes a narrative with fictional characters which may remind the reader of real people/types but are nevertheless original independent creations.
This would differentiate it from his earlier work where real people and events were described in a literary manner. John Glenn is a real person. Sherman McCoy is not.
My own thought, better said.
With Tom Wolfe, boundary between fact & fancy can be difficult to demarcate, but that was major part of his style, schtick and success.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
Lincoln waiting to sign & publish the (First) Emancipation Proclamation until AFTER the Army of the Potomoc turned back Lee's invasion of Maryland at Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) in Sept 1862.
He was a masterful politician, particularly with respect to timing.
Hard to think of anyone better in that department.
Especially since her immediate prospects at the start of the New Year depend on her electoral performance in Iowa and New Hampshire - two of the Whitest states in the US. (Indeed that's reason why Democrats advanced South Carolina and Nevada ahead of the historic "first in the nation" states.
Speaking of the Palmetto State, think that Haley answered (intially) more like a South Carolina politico than a national politico. Itself an error at this stage of play.
Yes, the headline is a little dramatic. And it still comes down to this: if Trump isn’t the nominee, who remains ?
Gaffe(s) ain't good.
But it may help Nikki Haley, even with Republicans of Color (still a small if growing group) that she was the Governor who took down the Confederate battle flag at the South Carolina State House and kept it down.
In that context it was an odd misstep. Up until now, she’s been fairly adroit.
Nikki Haley clearly had a bad day on the campaign trail.
Question for her, at this stage as serious POTUS contender, is - can she prevent it from becoming a bad week?
My guess is probably yes.
She gave an answer that was OK in SC statewide politics, but not-OK for US national politics.
Though this bothers media, pundits, operatives more than it does most actual/prospective Republican caucus/primary voters.
One bad day can lead to another, though. Once you're the clear number two in the race, you can't triangulate so easily.
Nikki Haley just got a brutal question from a voter who told her on “moral clarity, she was coming up short.” He said she “had a chance to redeem herself after last night’s slavery thing” if she would categorically reject she would ever be Trump’s running mate. She did not. https://twitter.com/evamckend/status/1740531121815707689
Lincoln waiting to sign & publish the (First) Emancipation Proclamation until AFTER the Army of the Potomoc turned back Lee's invasion of Maryland at Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) in Sept 1862.
He was a masterful politician, particularly with respect to timing.
Hard to think of anyone better in that department.
One of my few political heroes. A politician of great principle who also was a calculating bastard when he needed to be.
Er, in a technical sense she is right. The American Civil War was fought to prevent the southern states seceding. That was the explicit rationale and casus belli - to defend the Union. Anything else is not a DIRECT cause
Naturally, slavery - and issues surrounding it - are the predominant reason for that southern secession
But you can argue she is being strictly, parsimoniously accurate (albeit deeply foolish, in the way it will be seen)
You need to look at the behaviour of some of the senior politicians at the time
For example, Governor Brown of Tennessee. He led the campaign to abolish slavery in his state but lost.
And yet when the Union invaded his state he raised a regiment and fought against them (and for the Confederacy) because his loyalty to his state was more important than anything else
Especially since her immediate prospects at the start of the New Year depend on her electoral performance in Iowa and New Hampshire - two of the Whitest states in the US. (Indeed that's reason why Democrats advanced South Carolina and Nevada ahead of the historic "first in the nation" states.
Speaking of the Palmetto State, think that Haley answered (intially) more like a South Carolina politico than a national politico. Itself an error at this stage of play.
Yes, the headline is a little dramatic. And it still comes down to this: if Trump isn’t the nominee, who remains ?
Gaffe(s) ain't good.
But it may help Nikki Haley, even with Republicans of Color (still a small if growing group) that she was the Governor who took down the Confederate battle flag at the South Carolina State House and kept it down.
In that context it was an odd misstep. Up until now, she’s been fairly adroit.
Nikki Haley clearly had a bad day on the campaign trail.
Question for her, at this stage as serious POTUS contender, is - can she prevent it from becoming a bad week?
My guess is probably yes.
She gave an answer that was OK in SC statewide politics, but not-OK for US national politics.
Though this bothers media, pundits, operatives more than it does most actual/prospective Republican caucus/primary voters.
One bad day can lead to another, though. Once you're the clear number two in the race, you can't triangulate so easily.
Nikki Haley just got a brutal question from a voter who told her on “moral clarity, she was coming up short.” He said she “had a chance to redeem herself after last night’s slavery thing” if she would categorically reject she would ever be Trump’s running mate. She did not. https://twitter.com/evamckend/status/1740531121815707689
Hard for me to see how Haley's response hurts her next month in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SCOTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SCOTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
It wouldn’t be ‘corruption’ of SCOTUS to rule on the case, they need to because otherwise it is going to set off a whole wave of tit for tat moves across the US. Texas’ Lt-Gov has already said Biden should be off on the ballot as he alleges Biden has deliberately violated U.S. Border security and other Republican states will inevitably follow.
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
No real surprise here, JB will want the whole Ukraine war thing wrapped up before November 2024 so it doesn’t become an election issue. Which means Zelensky is going to be told to make a deal or else.
If the West had given Ukraine the weapons it needed in the quantities needed 12-18 months ago, then Ukraine could have had a fighting chance. Instead, the Russians won valuable time to regroup which has enabled them to blunt Ukraine’s offensives.
Germany and the US have a lot to answer for in how they have handled this .
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SC OTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
It wouldn’t be ‘corruption’ of SCOTUS to rule on the case, they need to because otherwise it is going to set off a whole wave of tit for tat moves across the US. Texas’ Lt-Gov has already said Biden should be off on the ballot as he alleges Biden has deliberately violated U.S. Border security and other Republican states will inevitably follow.
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
I think if the TX lt-gov tries to exclude Biden like that a TX court will tell him to cut it out.
A criminal conviction isn't the requirement in the constitution. A lot of the people it was clearly intended to exclude didn't have convictions. I'm not sure what the Maine process was but the Colorado court heard their own evidence, Trump had a chance to submit his evidence, and it relied on the facts in the January 6th report. Trump argued that the January 6th report wasn't reliable because the commitee were biased against him, but he didn't come up with concrete cases where the committee got its facts wrong or refused to consider evidence that would have shown he hadn't done what they said he did.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SC OTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
It wouldn’t be ‘corruption’ of SCOTUS to rule on the case, they need to because otherwise it is going to set off a whole wave of tit for tat moves across the US. Texas’ Lt-Gov has already said Biden should be off on the ballot as he alleges Biden has deliberately violated U.S. Border security and other Republican states will inevitably follow.
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
I think if the TX lt-gov tries to exclude Biden like that a TX court will tell him to cut it out.
A criminal conviction isn't the requirement in the constitution. A lot of the people it was clearly intended to exclude didn't have convictions. I'm not sure what the Maine process was but the Colorado court heard their own evidence, Trump had a chance to submit his evidence, and it relied on the facts in the January 6th report. Trump argued that the January 6th report wasn't reliable because the commitee were biased against him, but he didn't come up with concrete cases where the committee got its facts wrong or refused to consider evidence that would have shown he hadn't done what they said he did.
It also isn’t in the Constitution that the President is an Officer of the US and there is clear evidence from similar documents of the time that this was a deliberate omission, not an implied admission the President was.
There are a hell of a lot of people including yourself convinced that Trump committed insurrection so why not charge him with that? After all, he has been charged with other crimes.
The reason for that is clear. Even the most biased prosecutors realise such a charge would ultimately fail - and hence they don’t want to try it in court.
I also wouldn’t be too sure a TX Court would chuck out such a move to exclude Biden. The TX Supreme Court Justices are all Republicans and Governor Abbott sat on the Court.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SC OTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
It wouldn’t be ‘corruption’ of SCOTUS to rule on the case, they need to because otherwise it is going to set off a whole wave of tit for tat moves across the US. Texas’ Lt-Gov has already said Biden should be off on the ballot as he alleges Biden has deliberately violated U.S. Border security and other Republican states will inevitably follow.
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
I think if the TX lt-gov tries to exclude Biden like that a TX court will tell him to cut it out.
A criminal conviction isn't the requirement in the constitution. A lot of the people it was clearly intended to exclude didn't have convictions. I'm not sure what the Maine process was but the Colorado court heard their own evidence, Trump had a chance to submit his evidence, and it relied on the facts in the January 6th report. Trump argued that the January 6th report wasn't reliable because the commitee were biased against him, but he didn't come up with concrete cases where the committee got its facts wrong or refused to consider evidence that would have shown he hadn't done what they said he did.
It also isn’t in the Constitution that the President is an Officer of the US and there is clear evidence from similar documents of the time that this was a deliberate omission, not an implied admission the President was.
There are a hell of a lot of people including yourself convinced that Trump committed insurrection so why not charge him with that? After all, he has been charged with other crimes.
The reason for that is clear. Even the most biased prosecutors realise such a charge would ultimately fail - and hence they don’t want to try it in court.
I also wouldn’t be too sure a TX Court would chuck out such a move to exclude Biden. The TX Supreme Court Justices are all Republicans and Governor Abbott sat on the Court.
You reap what you sow.
The officer thing seems dubious. The argument that the president isn't an officer is that they listed a bunch of positions and didn't include president in the list, but the counterargument is that they talk about the presidency being an office a lot elsewhere so it should be obvious that the president is an officer, whereas the things they list weren't obviously officers. One Colorado court went one way, the other went the other way. I don't think it's *certain* that SCOTUS would find for Trump, if they even intervene.
On why not charge Trump with insurrection, it seems like they've tried to charge him with relatively common crimes with lots of caselaw so they don't get tied up in legal arguments for years on end.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SC OTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
It wouldn’t be ‘corruption’ of SCOTUS to rule on the case, they need to because otherwise it is going to set off a whole wave of tit for tat moves across the US. Texas’ Lt-Gov has already said Biden should be off on the ballot as he alleges Biden has deliberately violated U.S. Border security and other Republican states will inevitably follow.
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
I think if the TX lt-gov tries to exclude Biden like that a TX court will tell him to cut it out.
A criminal conviction isn't the requirement in the constitution. A lot of the people it was clearly intended to exclude didn't have convictions. I'm not sure what the Maine process was but the Colorado court heard their own evidence, Trump had a chance to submit his evidence, and it relied on the facts in the January 6th report. Trump argued that the January 6th report wasn't reliable because the commitee were biased against him, but he didn't come up with concrete cases where the committee got its facts wrong or refused to consider evidence that would have shown he hadn't done what they said he did.
It also isn’t in the Constitution that the President is an Officer of the US and there is clear evidence from similar documents of the time that this was a deliberate omission, not an implied admission the President was.
There are a hell of a lot of people including yourself convinced that Trump committed insurrection so why not charge him with that? After all, he has been charged with other crimes.
The reason for that is clear. Even the most biased prosecutors realise such a charge would ultimately fail - and hence they don’t want to try it in court.
I also wouldn’t be too sure a TX Court would chuck out such a move to exclude Biden. The TX Supreme Court Justices are all Republicans and Governor Abbott sat on the Court.
You reap what you sow.
The officer thing seems dubious. The argument that the president isn't an officer is that they listed a bunch of positions and didn't include president in the list, but the counterargument is that they talk about the presidency being an office a lot elsewhere so it should be obvious that the president is an officer, whereas the things they list weren't obviously officers. One Colorado court went one way, the other went the other way. I don't think it's *certain* that SCOTUS would find for Trump, if they even intervene.
On why not charge Trump with insurrection, it seems like they've tried to charge him with relatively common crimes with lots of caselaw so they don't get tied up in legal arguments for years on end.
Your last paragraph is rubbish. In Georgia, he has been charged under RICO legislation which Fani Willis has admitted is unprecedented and Jack Smith has also admitted that his prosecution is based on a ‘novel’ interpretation of the law. These are not ‘relatively common’ crimes, it is a whole new way of looking at the law. The same goes with James’ NY case - anyone involved in property will tell you property developers / owners regularly inflate the worth of their assets even if others don’t believe them.
I go back to the original point. Plenty of Democrats are convinced he committed insurrection so charge him with it - if the evidence is as strong as you say it is, then a conviction should be easy.
But it isn’t hence the lack of charges. In addition, even if he was charged and convicted, then both Harris and Chuck Schumer could easily be charged under the same principles given their language, especially Schumer’s apparent threats to two SCOTUS Justices.
As I said, you reap what you sow. All these things are doing are giving Trump extra ammunition but, more importantly, encouraging tit for tat. I’m sure if TX was to rule against Biden being in the ballot, we will hear plenty about their Justices being Republican appointed but I won’t be sympathetic to any complaints even though - if they did rule in such a way - their decision would be as wrong as Colorado’s SC.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SC OTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
It wouldn’t be ‘corruption’ of SCOTUS to rule on the case, they need to because otherwise it is going to set off a whole wave of tit for tat moves across the US. Texas’ Lt-Gov has already said Biden should be off on the ballot as he alleges Biden has deliberately violated U.S. Border security and other Republican states will inevitably follow.
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
I think if the TX lt-gov tries to exclude Biden like that a TX court will tell him to cut it out.
A criminal conviction isn't the requirement in the constitution. A lot of the people it was clearly intended to exclude didn't have convictions. I'm not sure what the Maine process was but the Colorado court heard their own evidence, Trump had a chance to submit his evidence, and it relied on the facts in the January 6th report. Trump argued that the January 6th report wasn't reliable because the commitee were biased against him, but he didn't come up with concrete cases where the committee got its facts wrong or refused to consider evidence that would have shown he hadn't done what they said he did.
It also isn’t in the Constitution that the President is an Officer of the US and there is clear evidence from similar documents of the time that this was a deliberate omission, not an implied admission the President was.
There are a hell of a lot of people including yourself convinced that Trump committed insurrection so why not charge him with that? After all, he has been charged with other crimes.
The reason for that is clear. Even the most biased prosecutors realise such a charge would ultimately fail - and hence they don’t want to try it in court.
I also wouldn’t be too sure a TX Court would chuck out such a move to exclude Biden. The TX Supreme Court Justices are all Republicans and Governor Abbott sat on the Court.
You reap what you sow.
The officer thing seems dubious. The argument that the president isn't an officer is that they listed a bunch of positions and didn't include president in the list, but the counterargument is that they talk about the presidency being an office a lot elsewhere so it should be obvious that the president is an officer, whereas the things they list weren't obviously officers. One Colorado court went one way, the other went the other way. I don't think it's *certain* that SCOTUS would find for Trump, if they even intervene.
On why not charge Trump with insurrection, it seems like they've tried to charge him with relatively common crimes with lots of caselaw so they don't get tied up in legal arguments for years on end.
Your last paragraph is rubbish. In Georgia, he has been charged under RICO legislation which Fani Willis has admitted is unprecedented and Jack Smith has also admitted that his prosecution is based on a ‘novel’ interpretation of the law. These are not ‘relatively common’ crimes, it is a whole new way of looking at the law. The same goes with James’ NY case - anyone involved in property will tell you property developers / owners regularly inflate the worth of their assets even if others don’t believe them.
I go back to the original point. Plenty of Democrats are convinced he committed insurrection so charge him with it - if the evidence is as strong as you say it is, then a conviction should be easy.
But it isn’t hence the lack of charges. In addition, even if he was charged and convicted, then both Harris and Chuck Schumer could easily be charged under the same principles given their language, especially Schumer’s apparent threats to two SCOTUS Justices.
As I said, you reap what you sow. All these things are doing are giving Trump extra ammunition but, more importantly, encouraging tit for tat. I’m sure if TX was to rule against Biden being in the ballot, we will hear plenty about their Justices being Republican appointed but I won’t be sympathetic to any complaints even though - if they did rule in such a way - their decision would be as wrong as Colorado’s SC.
The DC case is straightforward stufff like "conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding". The only part that sounds stretchy is "conspiracy against rights" but that has loads and loads of caselaw.
The *Georgia* case seems more inclined to throw stuff at him that may or may not stick but the Georgia DA can only prosecute Georgia crimes.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SC OTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
It wouldn’t be ‘corruption’ of SCOTUS to rule on the case, they need to because otherwise it is going to set off a whole wave of tit for tat moves across the US. Texas’ Lt-Gov has already said Biden should be off on the ballot as he alleges Biden has deliberately violated U.S. Border security and other Republican states will inevitably follow.
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
I think if the TX lt-gov tries to exclude Biden like that a TX court will tell him to cut it out.
A criminal conviction isn't the requirement in the constitution. A lot of the people it was clearly intended to exclude didn't have convictions. I'm not sure what the Maine process was but the Colorado court heard their own evidence, Trump had a chance to submit his evidence, and it relied on the facts in the January 6th report. Trump argued that the January 6th report wasn't reliable because the commitee were biased against him, but he didn't come up with concrete cases where the committee got its facts wrong or refused to consider evidence that would have shown he hadn't done what they said he did.
It also isn’t in the Constitution that the President is an Officer of the US and there is clear evidence from similar documents of the time that this was a deliberate omission, not an implied admission the President was.
There are a hell of a lot of people including yourself convinced that Trump committed insurrection so why not charge him with that? After all, he has been charged with other crimes.
The reason for that is clear. Even the most biased prosecutors realise such a charge would ultimately fail - and hence they don’t want to try it in court.
I also wouldn’t be too sure a TX Court would chuck out such a move to exclude Biden. The TX Supreme Court Justices are all Republicans and Governor Abbott sat on the Court.
You reap what you sow.
The officer thing seems dubious. The argument that the president isn't an officer is that they listed a bunch of positions and didn't include president in the list, but the counterargument is that they talk about the presidency being an office a lot elsewhere so it should be obvious that the president is an officer, whereas the things they list weren't obviously officers. One Colorado court went one way, the other went the other way. I don't think it's *certain* that SCOTUS would find for Trump, if they even intervene.
On why not charge Trump with insurrection, it seems like they've tried to charge him with relatively common crimes with lots of caselaw so they don't get tied up in legal arguments for years on end.
Your last paragraph is rubbish. In Georgia, he has been charged under RICO legislation which Fani Willis has admitted is unprecedented and Jack Smith has also admitted that his prosecution is based on a ‘novel’ interpretation of the law. These are not ‘relatively common’ crimes, it is a whole new way of looking at the law. The same goes with James’ NY case - anyone involved in property will tell you property developers / owners regularly inflate the worth of their assets even if others don’t believe them.
I go back to the original point. Plenty of Democrats are convinced he committed insurrection so charge him with it - if the evidence is as strong as you say it is, then a conviction should be easy.
But it isn’t hence the lack of charges. In addition, even if he was charged and convicted, then both Harris and Chuck Schumer could easily be charged under the same principles given their language, especially Schumer’s apparent threats to two SCOTUS Justices.
As I said, you reap what you sow. All these things are doing are giving Trump extra ammunition but, more importantly, encouraging tit for tat. I’m sure if TX was to rule against Biden being in the ballot, we will hear plenty about their Justices being Republican appointed but I won’t be sympathetic to any complaints even though - if they did rule in such a way - their decision would be as wrong as Colorado’s SC.
The DC case is straightforward stufff like "conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding". The only part that sounds stretchy is "conspiracy against rights" but that has loads and loads of caselaw.
The *Georgia* case seems more inclined to throw stuff at him that may or may not stick but the Georgia DA can only prosecute Georgia crimes.
Both have said their interpretations are novel ie they are stretching the limits of their interpretation of the law. This isn’t straight forwards stuff - Smith’s direct appeal to SCOTUS, for example, is extremely rare and was rightly kicked back. Willis’ case is definitely a mud throwing exercise which already looks to be backfiring.
What really is going to be interesting is if SCOTUS kicks out the interpretation used to convict Jan 6 rioters around disrupting ‘official’ proceedings which were originally provisions from the Sarbannes-Oxley 2002 Act post the Enron scandal. If they do that, then Trump’s prosecution by Smith in particular looks even more imperilled - as does the insurrection claims.
But, to go back to what I said, if the evidence against Trump is so strong on the insurrection claim, then he should be prosecuted - and, if he is not, that tells you something about how viable a claim it is.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SC OTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
It wouldn’t be ‘corruption’ of SCOTUS to rule on the case, they need to because otherwise it is going to set off a whole wave of tit for tat moves across the US. Texas’ Lt-Gov has already said Biden should be off on the ballot as he alleges Biden has deliberately violated U.S. Border security and other Republican states will inevitably follow.
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
I think if the TX lt-gov tries to exclude Biden like that a TX court will tell him to cut it out.
A criminal conviction isn't the requirement in the constitution. A lot of the people it was clearly intended to exclude didn't have convictions. I'm not sure what the Maine process was but the Colorado court heard their own evidence, Trump had a chance to submit his evidence, and it relied on the facts in the January 6th report. Trump argued that the January 6th report wasn't reliable because the commitee were biased against him, but he didn't come up with concrete cases where the committee got its facts wrong or refused to consider evidence that would have shown he hadn't done what they said he did.
It also isn’t in the Constitution that the President is an Officer of the US and there is clear evidence from similar documents of the time that this was a deliberate omission, not an implied admission the President was.
There are a hell of a lot of people including yourself convinced that Trump committed insurrection so why not charge him with that? After all, he has been charged with other crimes.
The reason for that is clear. Even the most biased prosecutors realise such a charge would ultimately fail - and hence they don’t want to try it in court.
I also wouldn’t be too sure a TX Court would chuck out such a move to exclude Biden. The TX Supreme Court Justices are all Republicans and Governor Abbott sat on the Court.
You reap what you sow.
The officer thing seems dubious. The argument that the president isn't an officer is that they listed a bunch of positions and didn't include president in the list, but the counterargument is that they talk about the presidency being an office a lot elsewhere so it should be obvious that the president is an officer, whereas the things they list weren't obviously officers. One Colorado court went one way, the other went the other way. I don't think it's *certain* that SCOTUS would find for Trump, if they even intervene.
On why not charge Trump with insurrection, it seems like they've tried to charge him with relatively common crimes with lots of caselaw so they don't get tied up in legal arguments for years on end.
Your last paragraph is rubbish. In Georgia, he has been charged under RICO legislation which Fani Willis has admitted is unprecedented and Jack Smith has also admitted that his prosecution is based on a ‘novel’ interpretation of the law. These are not ‘relatively common’ crimes, it is a whole new way of looking at the law. The same goes with James’ NY case - anyone involved in property will tell you property developers / owners regularly inflate the worth of their assets even if others don’t believe them.
I go back to the original point. Plenty of Democrats are convinced he committed insurrection so charge him with it - if the evidence is as strong as you say it is, then a conviction should be easy.
But it isn’t hence the lack of charges. In addition, even if he was charged and convicted, then both Harris and Chuck Schumer could easily be charged under the same principles given their language, especially Schumer’s apparent threats to two SCOTUS Justices.
As I said, you reap what you sow. All these things are doing are giving Trump extra ammunition but, more importantly, encouraging tit for tat. I’m sure if TX was to rule against Biden being in the ballot, we will hear plenty about their Justices being Republican appointed but I won’t be sympathetic to any complaints even though - if they did rule in such a way - their decision would be as wrong as Colorado’s SC.
The DC case is straightforward stufff like "conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding". The only part that sounds stretchy is "conspiracy against rights" but that has loads and loads of caselaw.
The *Georgia* case seems more inclined to throw stuff at him that may or may not stick but the Georgia DA can only prosecute Georgia crimes.
Both have said their interpretations are novel ie they are stretching the limits of their interpretation of the law. This isn’t straight forwards stuff - Smith’s direct appeal to SCOTUS, for example, is extremely rare and was rightly kicked back. Willis’ case is definitely a mud throwing exercise which already looks to be backfiring.
What really is going to be interesting is if SCOTUS kicks out the interpretation used to convict Jan 6 rioters around disrupting ‘official’ proceedings which were originally provisions from the Sarbannes-Oxley 2002 Act post the Enron scandal. If they do that, then Trump’s prosecution by Smith in particular looks even more imperilled - as does the insurrection claims.
But, to go back to what I said, if the evidence against Trump is so strong on the insurrection claim, then he should be prosecuted - and, if he is not, that tells you something about how viable a claim it is.
The appeal to SCOTUS to skip the appeal court didn't cost any time to speak of, and if it had gone through it wouldn't have created a complicated thing to appeal. Smith asked, SCOTUS promptly said "no" and the appeal court got on with their job.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SC OTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
It wouldn’t be ‘corruption’ of SCOTUS to rule on the case, they need to because otherwise it is going to set off a whole wave of tit for tat moves across the US. Texas’ Lt-Gov has already said Biden should be off on the ballot as he alleges Biden has deliberately violated U.S. Border security and other Republican states will inevitably follow.
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
I think if the TX lt-gov tries to exclude Biden like that a TX court will tell him to cut it out.
A criminal conviction isn't the requirement in the constitution. A lot of the people it was clearly intended to exclude didn't have convictions. I'm not sure what the Maine process was but the Colorado court heard their own evidence, Trump had a chance to submit his evidence, and it relied on the facts in the January 6th report. Trump argued that the January 6th report wasn't reliable because the commitee were biased against him, but he didn't come up with concrete cases where the committee got its facts wrong or refused to consider evidence that would have shown he hadn't done what they said he did.
It also isn’t in the Constitution that the President is an Officer of the US and there is clear evidence from similar documents of the time that this was a deliberate omission, not an implied admission the President was.
There are a hell of a lot of people including yourself convinced that Trump committed insurrection so why not charge him with that? After all, he has been charged with other crimes.
The reason for that is clear. Even the most biased prosecutors realise such a charge would ultimately fail - and hence they don’t want to try it in court.
I also wouldn’t be too sure a TX Court would chuck out such a move to exclude Biden. The TX Supreme Court Justices are all Republicans and Governor Abbott sat on the Court.
You reap what you sow.
The officer thing seems dubious. The argument that the president isn't an officer is that they listed a bunch of positions and didn't include president in the list, but the counterargument is that they talk about the presidency being an office a lot elsewhere so it should be obvious that the president is an officer, whereas the things they list weren't obviously officers. One Colorado court went one way, the other went the other way. I don't think it's *certain* that SCOTUS would find for Trump, if they even intervene.
On why not charge Trump with insurrection, it seems like they've tried to charge him with relatively common crimes with lots of caselaw so they don't get tied up in legal arguments for years on end.
Your last paragraph is rubbish. In Georgia, he has been charged under RICO legislation which Fani Willis has admitted is unprecedented and Jack Smith has also admitted that his prosecution is based on a ‘novel’ interpretation of the law. These are not ‘relatively common’ crimes, it is a whole new way of looking at the law. The same goes with James’ NY case - anyone involved in property will tell you property developers / owners regularly inflate the worth of their assets even if others don’t believe them.
I go back to the original point. Plenty of Democrats are convinced he committed insurrection so charge him with it - if the evidence is as strong as you say it is, then a conviction should be easy.
But it isn’t hence the lack of charges. In addition, even if he was charged and convicted, then both Harris and Chuck Schumer could easily be charged under the same principles given their language, especially Schumer’s apparent threats to two SCOTUS Justices.
As I said, you reap what you sow. All these things are doing are giving Trump extra ammunition but, more importantly, encouraging tit for tat. I’m sure if TX was to rule against Biden being in the ballot, we will hear plenty about their Justices being Republican appointed but I won’t be sympathetic to any complaints even though - if they did rule in such a way - their decision would be as wrong as Colorado’s SC.
The DC case is straightforward stufff like "conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding". The only part that sounds stretchy is "conspiracy against rights" but that has loads and loads of caselaw.
The *Georgia* case seems more inclined to throw stuff at him that may or may not stick but the Georgia DA can only prosecute Georgia crimes.
Both have said their interpretations are novel ie they are stretching the limits of their interpretation of the law. This isn’t straight forwards stuff - Smith’s direct appeal to SCOTUS, for example, is extremely rare and was rightly kicked back. Willis’ case is definitely a mud throwing exercise which already looks to be backfiring.
What really is going to be interesting is if SCOTUS kicks out the interpretation used to convict Jan 6 rioters around disrupting ‘official’ proceedings which were originally provisions from the Sarbannes-Oxley 2002 Act post the Enron scandal. If they do that, then Trump’s prosecution by Smith in particular looks even more imperilled - as does the insurrection claims.
But, to go back to what I said, if the evidence against Trump is so strong on the insurrection claim, then he should be prosecuted - and, if he is not, that tells you something about how viable a claim it is.
The appeal to SCOTUS to skip the appeal court didn't cost any time to speak of, and if it had gone through it wouldn't have created a complicated thing to appeal. Smith asked, SCOTUS promptly said "no" and the appeal court got on with their job.
Which is very true but the fact he asked at all demonstrated he wanted to take shortcuts to get to the outcome he desired. Trump is often criticised for his ways to bypass the normal structures. If that is justified, Smith should also be criticised and not praised just because he is prosecuting Trump - that is not equal standards, it is partisanship.
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SC OTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
It wouldn’t be ‘corruption’ of SCOTUS to rule on the case, they need to because otherwise it is going to set off a whole wave of tit for tat moves across the US. Texas’ Lt-Gov has already said Biden should be off on the ballot as he alleges Biden has deliberately violated U.S. Border security and other Republican states will inevitably follow.
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
I think if the TX lt-gov tries to exclude Biden like that a TX court will tell him to cut it out.
A criminal conviction isn't the requirement in the constitution. A lot of the people it was clearly intended to exclude didn't have convictions. I'm not sure what the Maine process was but the Colorado court heard their own evidence, Trump had a chance to submit his evidence, and it relied on the facts in the January 6th report. Trump argued that the January 6th report wasn't reliable because the commitee were biased against him, but he didn't come up with concrete cases where the committee got its facts wrong or refused to consider evidence that would have shown he hadn't done what they said he did.
It also isn’t in the Constitution that the President is an Officer of the US and there is clear evidence from similar documents of the time that this was a deliberate omission, not an implied admission the President was.
There are a hell of a lot of people including yourself convinced that Trump committed insurrection so why not charge him with that? After all, he has been charged with other crimes.
The reason for that is clear. Even the most biased prosecutors realise such a charge would ultimately fail - and hence they don’t want to try it in court.
I also wouldn’t be too sure a TX Court would chuck out such a move to exclude Biden. The TX Supreme Court Justices are all Republicans and Governor Abbott sat on the Court.
You reap what you sow.
The officer thing seems dubious. The argument that the president isn't an officer is that they listed a bunch of positions and didn't include president in the list, but the counterargument is that they talk about the presidency being an office a lot elsewhere so it should be obvious that the president is an officer, whereas the things they list weren't obviously officers. One Colorado court went one way, the other went the other way. I don't think it's *certain* that SCOTUS would find for Trump, if they even intervene.
On why not charge Trump with insurrection, it seems like they've tried to charge him with relatively common crimes with lots of caselaw so they don't get tied up in legal arguments for years on end.
Your last paragraph is rubbish. In Georgia, he has been charged under RICO legislation which Fani Willis has admitted is unprecedented and Jack Smith has also admitted that his prosecution is based on a ‘novel’ interpretation of the law. These are not ‘relatively common’ crimes, it is a whole new way of looking at the law. The same goes with James’ NY case - anyone involved in property will tell you property developers / owners regularly inflate the worth of their assets even if others don’t believe them.
I go back to the original point. Plenty of Democrats are convinced he committed insurrection so charge him with it - if the evidence is as strong as you say it is, then a conviction should be easy.
But it isn’t hence the lack of charges. In addition, even if he was charged and convicted, then both Harris and Chuck Schumer could easily be charged under the same principles given their language, especially Schumer’s apparent threats to two SCOTUS Justices.
As I said, you reap what you sow. All these things are doing are giving Trump extra ammunition but, more importantly, encouraging tit for tat. I’m sure if TX was to rule against Biden being in the ballot, we will hear plenty about their Justices being Republican appointed but I won’t be sympathetic to any complaints even though - if they did rule in such a way - their decision would be as wrong as Colorado’s SC.
The DC case is straightforward stufff like "conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding". The only part that sounds stretchy is "conspiracy against rights" but that has loads and loads of caselaw.
The *Georgia* case seems more inclined to throw stuff at him that may or may not stick but the Georgia DA can only prosecute Georgia crimes.
Both have said their interpretations are novel ie they are stretching the limits of their interpretation of the law. This isn’t straight forwards stuff - Smith’s direct appeal to SCOTUS, for example, is extremely rare and was rightly kicked back. Willis’ case is definitely a mud throwing exercise which already looks to be backfiring.
What really is going to be interesting is if SCOTUS kicks out the interpretation used to convict Jan 6 rioters around disrupting ‘official’ proceedings which were originally provisions from the Sarbannes-Oxley 2002 Act post the Enron scandal. If they do that, then Trump’s prosecution by Smith in particular looks even more imperilled - as does the insurrection claims.
But, to go back to what I said, if the evidence against Trump is so strong on the insurrection claim, then he should be prosecuted - and, if he is not, that tells you something about how viable a claim it is.
The appeal to SCOTUS to skip the appeal court didn't cost any time to speak of, and if it had gone through it wouldn't have created a complicated thing to appeal. Smith asked, SCOTUS promptly said "no" and the appeal court got on with their job.
Which is very true but the fact he asked at all demonstrated he wanted to take shortcuts to get to the outcome he desired. Trump is often criticised for his ways to bypass the normal structures. If that is justified, Smith should also be criticised and not praised just because he is prosecuting Trump - that is not equal standards, it is partisanship.
Answer me this: is there an actual crime of “insurrection” to prosecute?
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SC OTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
It wouldn’t be ‘corruption’ of SCOTUS to rule on the case, they need to because otherwise it is going to set off a whole wave of tit for tat moves across the US. Texas’ Lt-Gov has already said Biden should be off on the ballot as he alleges Biden has deliberately violated U.S. Border security and other Republican states will inevitably follow.
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
I think if the TX lt-gov tries to exclude Biden like that a TX court will tell him to cut it out.
A criminal conviction isn't the requirement in the constitution. A lot of the people it was clearly intended to exclude didn't have convictions. I'm not sure what the Maine process was but the Colorado court heard their own evidence, Trump had a chance to submit his evidence, and it relied on the facts in the January 6th report. Trump argued that the January 6th report wasn't reliable because the commitee were biased against him, but he didn't come up with concrete cases where the committee got its facts wrong or refused to consider evidence that would have shown he hadn't done what they said he did.
It also isn’t in the Constitution that the President is an Officer of the US and there is clear evidence from similar documents of the time that this was a deliberate omission, not an implied admission the President was.
There are a hell of a lot of people including yourself convinced that Trump committed insurrection so why not charge him with that? After all, he has been charged with other crimes.
The reason for that is clear. Even the most biased prosecutors realise such a charge would ultimately fail - and hence they don’t want to try it in court.
I also wouldn’t be too sure a TX Court would chuck out such a move to exclude Biden. The TX Supreme Court Justices are all Republicans and Governor Abbott sat on the Court.
You reap what you sow.
The officer thing seems dubious. The argument that the president isn't an officer is that they listed a bunch of positions and didn't include president in the list, but the counterargument is that they talk about the presidency being an office a lot elsewhere so it should be obvious that the president is an officer, whereas the things they list weren't obviously officers. One Colorado court went one way, the other went the other way. I don't think it's *certain* that SCOTUS would find for Trump, if they even intervene.
On why not charge Trump with insurrection, it seems like they've tried to charge him with relatively common crimes with lots of caselaw so they don't get tied up in legal arguments for years on end.
Your last paragraph is rubbish. In Georgia, he has been charged under RICO legislation which Fani Willis has admitted is unprecedented and Jack Smith has also admitted that his prosecution is based on a ‘novel’ interpretation of the law. These are not ‘relatively common’ crimes, it is a whole new way of looking at the law. The same goes with James’ NY case - anyone involved in property will tell you property developers / owners regularly inflate the worth of their assets even if others don’t believe them.
I go back to the original point. Plenty of Democrats are convinced he committed insurrection so charge him with it - if the evidence is as strong as you say it is, then a conviction should be easy.
But it isn’t hence the lack of charges. In addition, even if he was charged and convicted, then both Harris and Chuck Schumer could easily be charged under the same principles given their language, especially Schumer’s apparent threats to two SCOTUS Justices.
As I said, you reap what you sow. All these things are doing are giving Trump extra ammunition but, more importantly, encouraging tit for tat. I’m sure if TX was to rule against Biden being in the ballot, we will hear plenty about their Justices being Republican appointed but I won’t be sympathetic to any complaints even though - if they did rule in such a way - their decision would be as wrong as Colorado’s SC.
The DC case is straightforward stufff like "conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding". The only part that sounds stretchy is "conspiracy against rights" but that has loads and loads of caselaw.
The *Georgia* case seems more inclined to throw stuff at him that may or may not stick but the Georgia DA can only prosecute Georgia crimes.
Both have said their interpretations are novel ie they are stretching the limits of their interpretation of the law. This isn’t straight forwards stuff - Smith’s direct appeal to SCOTUS, for example, is extremely rare and was rightly kicked back. Willis’ case is definitely a mud throwing exercise which already looks to be backfiring.
What really is going to be interesting is if SCOTUS kicks out the interpretation used to convict Jan 6 rioters around disrupting ‘official’ proceedings which were originally provisions from the Sarbannes-Oxley 2002 Act post the Enron scandal. If they do that, then Trump’s prosecution by Smith in particular looks even more imperilled - as does the insurrection claims.
But, to go back to what I said, if the evidence against Trump is so strong on the insurrection claim, then he should be prosecuted - and, if he is not, that tells you something about how viable a claim it is.
The appeal to SCOTUS to skip the appeal court didn't cost any time to speak of, and if it had gone through it wouldn't have created a complicated thing to appeal. Smith asked, SCOTUS promptly said "no" and the appeal court got on with their job.
Which is very true but the fact he asked at all demonstrated he wanted to take shortcuts to get to the outcome he desired. Trump is often criticised for his ways to bypass the normal structures. If that is justified, Smith should also be criticised and not praised just because he is prosecuting Trump - that is not equal standards, it is partisanship.
Answer me this: is there an actual crime of “insurrection” to prosecute?
Fox News reporting that Colorado Secretary of State has announced, that if SCOTUS does NOT rule on state supreme court decision banning Trump from ballot before preparations for primary, then Trump WILL be on the ballot.
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
Secretary of State Bellows stays her decision to remove Trump from the ballot pending review in Maine's courts. In other words, he's still on the ballot for now. Maine's presidential primary is also on 3/5 https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
This one might actually have a material effect if upheld since Maine split their electoral vote by congressional district and Trump won one of them the last two times.
It’s not going to have any material effect because it is almost certainly going to be blocked by SCOTUS.
That seems more likely or not but I don think we should just *assume* the corruption of SC OTUS. So far they've stayed out of Trump's various issues.
It wouldn’t be ‘corruption’ of SCOTUS to rule on the case, they need to because otherwise it is going to set off a whole wave of tit for tat moves across the US. Texas’ Lt-Gov has already said Biden should be off on the ballot as he alleges Biden has deliberately violated U.S. Border security and other Republican states will inevitably follow.
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
I think if the TX lt-gov tries to exclude Biden like that a TX court will tell him to cut it out.
A criminal conviction isn't the requirement in the constitution. A lot of the people it was clearly intended to exclude didn't have convictions. I'm not sure what the Maine process was but the Colorado court heard their own evidence, Trump had a chance to submit his evidence, and it relied on the facts in the January 6th report. Trump argued that the January 6th report wasn't reliable because the commitee were biased against him, but he didn't come up with concrete cases where the committee got its facts wrong or refused to consider evidence that would have shown he hadn't done what they said he did.
It also isn’t in the Constitution that the President is an Officer of the US and there is clear evidence from similar documents of the time that this was a deliberate omission, not an implied admission the President was.
There are a hell of a lot of people including yourself convinced that Trump committed insurrection so why not charge him with that? After all, he has been charged with other crimes.
The reason for that is clear. Even the most biased prosecutors realise such a charge would ultimately fail - and hence they don’t want to try it in court.
I also wouldn’t be too sure a TX Court would chuck out such a move to exclude Biden. The TX Supreme Court Justices are all Republicans and Governor Abbott sat on the Court.
You reap what you sow.
The officer thing seems dubious. The argument that the president isn't an officer is that they listed a bunch of positions and didn't include president in the list, but the counterargument is that they talk about the presidency being an office a lot elsewhere so it should be obvious that the president is an officer, whereas the things they list weren't obviously officers. One Colorado court went one way, the other went the other way. I don't think it's *certain* that SCOTUS would find for Trump, if they even intervene.
On why not charge Trump with insurrection, it seems like they've tried to charge him with relatively common crimes with lots of caselaw so they don't get tied up in legal arguments for years on end.
Your last paragraph is rubbish. In Georgia, he has been charged under RICO legislation which Fani Willis has admitted is unprecedented and Jack Smith has also admitted that his prosecution is based on a ‘novel’ interpretation of the law. These are not ‘relatively common’ crimes, it is a whole new way of looking at the law. The same goes with James’ NY case - anyone involved in property will tell you property developers / owners regularly inflate the worth of their assets even if others don’t believe them.
I go back to the original point. Plenty of Democrats are convinced he committed insurrection so charge him with it - if the evidence is as strong as you say it is, then a conviction should be easy.
But it isn’t hence the lack of charges. In addition, even if he was charged and convicted, then both Harris and Chuck Schumer could easily be charged under the same principles given their language, especially Schumer’s apparent threats to two SCOTUS Justices.
As I said, you reap what you sow. All these things are doing are giving Trump extra ammunition but, more importantly, encouraging tit for tat. I’m sure if TX was to rule against Biden being in the ballot, we will hear plenty about their Justices being Republican appointed but I won’t be sympathetic to any complaints even though - if they did rule in such a way - their decision would be as wrong as Colorado’s SC.
The DC case is straightforward stufff like "conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding". The only part that sounds stretchy is "conspiracy against rights" but that has loads and loads of caselaw.
The *Georgia* case seems more inclined to throw stuff at him that may or may not stick but the Georgia DA can only prosecute Georgia crimes.
Both have said their interpretations are novel ie they are stretching the limits of their interpretation of the law. This isn’t straight forwards stuff - Smith’s direct appeal to SCOTUS, for example, is extremely rare and was rightly kicked back. Willis’ case is definitely a mud throwing exercise which already looks to be backfiring.
What really is going to be interesting is if SCOTUS kicks out the interpretation used to convict Jan 6 rioters around disrupting ‘official’ proceedings which were originally provisions from the Sarbannes-Oxley 2002 Act post the Enron scandal. If they do that, then Trump’s prosecution by Smith in particular looks even more imperilled - as does the insurrection claims.
But, to go back to what I said, if the evidence against Trump is so strong on the insurrection claim, then he should be prosecuted - and, if he is not, that tells you something about how viable a claim it is.
The appeal to SCOTUS to skip the appeal court didn't cost any time to speak of, and if it had gone through it wouldn't have created a complicated thing to appeal. Smith asked, SCOTUS promptly said "no" and the appeal court got on with their job.
Which is very true but the fact he asked at all demonstrated he wanted to take shortcuts to get to the outcome he desired. Trump is often criticised for his ways to bypass the normal structures. If that is justified, Smith should also be criticised and not praised just because he is prosecuting Trump - that is not equal standards, it is partisanship.
Answer me this: is there an actual crime of “insurrection” to prosecute?
Yes, there's a federal crime.
Do you mean Title 18 U.S. Code 2383 which doesn’t define “insurrection” and in any event wasn’t in place when the 14th amendment was enacted (as far as I can ascertain) and therefore couldn’t be what the drafters envisaged?
Lincoln waiting to sign & publish the (First) Emancipation Proclamation until AFTER the Army of the Potomoc turned back Lee's invasion of Maryland at Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) in Sept 1862.
He was a masterful politician, particularly with respect to timing.
Hard to think of anyone better in that department.
One of my few political heroes. A politician of great principle who also was a calculating bastard when he needed to be.
Yes, Lincoln is my favourite politician. A truly great man, a far more attractive figure to me than the founding fathers, especially the hypocritical Virginians. When I'm in DC I always try to find some quiet time at his memorial. To think of the kind of absolute scum who now run under his party's banner, it's quite incredible.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/28/moscow-court-hands-long-jail-terms-to-two-men-for-reciting-poetry
“A former GOP candidate for Pennsylvania lieutenant governor and leader of a political action committee that fueled conservative opposition to school boards has been charged with assault after allegedly punching a teenager at a boozy birthday party she threw for her 17-year-old daughter.”
Of course the underlying cause of the war was the differing views on slavery, no one seriously disputes that. But Lincoln, who led a deeply unstable and incoherent coalition with brilliance throughout the war in the face of many set backs was very careful of his ground, whatever his personal views were.
Perhaps your next incarnation won't think it is right and everyone else is wrong. Many of us disagree with each other. Profoundly. But we get on with it. If you want to flounce, do so already.
The idea that the two sides in a war have symmetrical aims. They nearly never do.
The South was fighting to preserve the *future* of slavery. They believed that if they didn’t control the government of the US, the North would gradually strangle slavery. If nothing else, bury not letting them expand to the new land they needed.
The North fought, initially, to preserve the Union. It was only later in the war that abolishing slavery became the majority view in the North - the Abolitionists were joined by the Anti-Slavery advocates, who went from only wanting to keep slavery out of the free states, to abolition. This was because slavery became associated with disunion and treason - a moral poison to the nation.
If the South hadn’t fought, slavery would have lasted much, much longer.
Politics is being broken by absolutism. And you are one of the worst of the absolutists. But not political absolutism. Personal. Other posters have an ideological position they defend robustly. I often disagree passionately but I respect the position.
What is your position? That you are right and everyone else is both wrong and stupid. You sound like that fake pastor guy with the hair. What's the point? Chill the fuck out and accept that like any other person your opinions aren't automatically facts.
Though what any leader actually thought at a given time is a matter of conjecture.
Fact that Lincoln would have allowed slavery to continue (but for how long?) in existing slave states IF that would preserve the Union (ditto?) does NOT mean that slavery was NOT the fundamental cause of the Civil War.
Just the opposite.
Argument that South seceded due to something OTHER than slavery, was and still is bunk.
Used to be Lost Cause" Southern apologist bunk. Now right-wing wackjob bunk.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1740130154909712688
"Boris Johnson
@BorisJohnson
Jacques Delors was the pre eminent architect of the modern European Union - and whether you agreed or not with his vision he was a towering political figure.
Without Delors there would have been no Maastricht treaty and no euro. Indeed without Delors there would have been no single market.
He harnessed post Cold War anxieties about Germany to create a new federal structure for Europe - and he did it with dazzling panache
His ideas were never right for Britain - as he himself later seemed to concede - and there are many on the continent who have doubts about the direction of the EU. But no one can doubt his legacy today. Whatever you say about the modern EU - it is the house that Jacques built."
NO ONE is saying "slavery was NOT the fundamental cause of the Civil War"
NO ONE is sayng the "South seceded due to something OTHER than slavery"
Literally, go check the comments
In his now-dated but still-interesting alternate history, McKinley Kantor opined that post-war Confederacy would have abolished slavery by 1885.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_the_South_Had_Won_the_Civil_War
Look at all the African and Arab pirates stealing “white women” from English villages and selling them on at comfortable profit - if you try to argue it’s contrary to your own “moral compass” it’s your sense of morality destroying someone else’s business model, way of life and earning a living.
And then look at all the serfs the lefties tried to free in revolutions, like the Russian Revolution. The serfs said buzz off - we are guaranteed lodging and work, but under your revolution we’ll have to move to the cities, work in dangerous factories for a pittance, and pay board and bills from that pittance. This is true history this is.
They were drawing maps with 100 states by 1900 - the Evul North would split states* and turn all the territories into tiny states full of anti-slavery migrants to overwhelm the Noble South and her beloved Peculiar Institution.
*hence the Texas option to split - as a reply to this bizarre future fever-dream.
Now he has gone off in a huff by doing his usual of claiming he has a massive IQ and looks down on us idiots and then threatens to walk, but never does
To hold these groups together Lincoln relied upon the Constitution and the powers it gave him to protect the Union. As the war went on and the cost grew ever more appalling, the ending of slavery became a war aim in itself because it was thought that it would destroy the base of the Southern economy. It took a lot of time and a fearful amount of blood for even a leader of Lincoln's eloquence to build that consensus.
His skill at building that consensus is, in my view, the most compelling argument for him to be regarded as the greatest American President. He was incredibly self disciplined in his comments as President as the quote from 1862 I referred to shows all too well.
It’s not as though it’s convinced anyone.
The EU’s Single Market is definitely one of Lady Thatcher and her governments greatest achievements.
Young Lincoln's personal antipathy to slavery began - or more like was solidified - by witnessing slavery up close during rafting trip down to New Orleans.
Perhaps worth noting, that one of his most notable actions during his short service as an congressman, was opposing the annexation of Texas and subsequent war with Mexico - on grounds that they meant expanding slavery within the United States.
(And, FWIW, I agree that Thatcher and in particular Leon Brittain played a major role but it would not have happened with Delors vision and drive.)
Like leaving sex to the sexologists to talk and write about.
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/28/nikki-haley-civil-war-slavery-history-00133281
I won’t quote it, as it really needs reading whole.
Among other points of frustration is the sense that the GOP candidates still can’t seem to talk about the horrors of slavery.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/28/republicans-of-color-nikki-haley-civil-war-00133286
Also true that initial response across North responding to Lincoln's call for volunteers after Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, was motivated (for most) by desire to preserve the Union, and NOT to overthrow slavery. Certainly the case in Lincoln's own Downstate Illinois.
AND that thing and aims and perspectives changed considerably over the course of the war.
You say that "Lincoln relied on the Constitution and the powers that it gave him" which is true in broad outline but hardly covers the waterfront, let alone the battlefield.
What Lincoln did, was to test the envelope of the Constitution like no POTUS before him, and few since. Including such actions as temporary suppression of Maryland legislature, deportation of anti-war Ohio congressman to Canada, and creation of the State of West Virginia to name just a few.
Being a lawyer, Abe knew just what he was doing. And did it, for what he regarded as the best of reasons, within the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution.
Isn't there an obvious mistake in this Wikipedia entry for Tom Wolfe?
Start of the 3rd paragraph:
"His first novel, The Bonfire of the Vanities, published in 1987, was met with critical acclaim and also became a commercial success."
I don't think it was his first novel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wolfe
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4380202-haley-takes-flak-for-blaming-civil-war-gaffe-on-plant/
*From both Republican and Democrat commentators, note.
Our history is what we are. Americans suffer from this as much as we do, although they say they do not. We didn't wake up this morning new-formed, we inherited thoughts and concepts from the past that influence our actions in the present.
In specific
There's been a tussle over American history for some time and it's politicised. Whether the ACW was driven by states' rights or slavery is part of that tussle, and the question to Nikki Haley should be seen in that context. It was meant to identify on which side of the tussle she sat, and it seems to have worked.
The China trade war has been important - Biden has continued and strengthened the focus (eg on TikTok).
But having just read American Kleptocracy (highly recommended by the way on the weaknesses of American money laundering regulations - I take nerdiness to a whole new level @AverageNinja ) it is just depressing what he undid on that front
Especially since her immediate prospects at the start of the New Year depend on her electoral performance in Iowa and New Hampshire - two of the Whitest states in the US. (Indeed that's reason why Democrats advanced South Carolina and Nevada ahead of the historic "first in the nation" states.
Speaking of the Palmetto State, think that Haley answered (intially) more like a South Carolina politico than a national politico. Itself an error at this stage of play.
And it still comes down to this: if Trump isn’t the nominee, who remains ?
But it may help Nikki Haley, even with Republicans of Color (still a small if growing group) that she was the Governor who took down the Confederate battle flag at the South Carolina State House and kept it down.
Greatly under appreciated by his political opponents, I think ?
This would differentiate it from his earlier work where real people and events were described in a literary manner. John Glenn is a real person. Sherman McCoy is not.
Up until now, she’s been fairly adroit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Union_speech
… Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us ...
Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively…
This piece might well be applied to Trump’s party today:
.. Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events…
Question for her, at this stage as serious POTUS contender, is - can she prevent it from becoming a bad week?
My guess is probably yes.
She gave an answer that was OK in SC statewide politics, but not-OK for US national politics.
Though this bothers media, pundits, operatives more than it does most actual/prospective Republican caucus/primary voters.
With Tom Wolfe, boundary between fact & fancy can be difficult to demarcate, but that was major part of his style, schtick and success.
NYT - Maine bans Trump from ballot via ruling by state Secretary of State (Democrat) as insurrectionist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWLtvnQRuQw
https://nitter.net/youngvulgarian/status/1740061876636274933#m
Meaning that unless SCOTUS makes ruling adverse to Trump ballot access, he's on in Colorado.
https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1740526712964973053
He was a masterful politician, particularly with respect to timing.
Hard to think of anyone better in that department.
Once you're the clear number two in the race, you can't triangulate so easily.
Nikki Haley just got a brutal question from a voter who told her on “moral clarity, she was coming up short.” He said she “had a chance to redeem herself after last night’s slavery thing” if she would categorically reject she would ever be Trump’s running mate. She did not.
https://twitter.com/evamckend/status/1740531121815707689
A politician of great principle who also was a calculating bastard when he needed to be.
‘Pile of bulls--t’: New Hampshire GOPers give Haley a pass on Civil War remarks
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/28/new-hampshire-gop-nikki-haley-civil-war-00133296
For example, Governor Brown of Tennessee. He led the campaign to abolish slavery in his state but lost.
And yet when the Union invaded his state he raised a regiment and fought against them (and for the Confederacy) because his loyalty to his state was more important than anything else
Remind me again, when was Trump convicted of insurrection?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211
No real surprise here, JB will want the whole Ukraine war thing wrapped up before November 2024 so it doesn’t become an election issue. Which means Zelensky is going to be told to make a deal or else.
If the West had given Ukraine the weapons it needed in the quantities needed 12-18 months ago, then Ukraine could have had a fighting chance. Instead, the Russians won valuable time to regroup which has enabled them to blunt Ukraine’s offensives.
Germany and the US have a lot to answer for in how they have handled this .
A criminal conviction isn't the requirement in the constitution. A lot of the people it was clearly intended to exclude didn't have convictions. I'm not sure what the Maine process was but the Colorado court heard their own evidence, Trump had a chance to submit his evidence, and it relied on the facts in the January 6th report. Trump argued that the January 6th report wasn't reliable because the commitee were biased against him, but he didn't come up with concrete cases where the committee got its facts wrong or refused to consider evidence that would have shown he hadn't done what they said he did.
There are a hell of a lot of people including yourself convinced that Trump committed insurrection so why not charge him with that? After all, he has been charged with other crimes.
The reason for that is clear. Even the most biased prosecutors realise such a charge would ultimately fail - and hence they don’t want to try it in court.
I also wouldn’t be too sure a TX Court would chuck out such a move to exclude Biden. The TX Supreme Court Justices are all Republicans and Governor Abbott sat on the Court.
You reap what you sow.
On why not charge Trump with insurrection, it seems like they've tried to charge him with relatively common crimes with lots of caselaw so they don't get tied up in legal arguments for years on end.
I go back to the original point. Plenty of Democrats are convinced he committed insurrection so charge him with it - if the evidence is as strong as you say it is, then a conviction should be easy.
But it isn’t hence the lack of charges. In addition, even if he was charged and convicted, then both Harris and Chuck Schumer could easily be charged under the same principles given their language, especially Schumer’s apparent threats to two SCOTUS Justices.
As I said, you reap what you sow. All these things are doing are giving Trump extra ammunition but, more importantly, encouraging tit for tat. I’m sure if TX was to rule against Biden being in the ballot, we will hear plenty about their Justices being Republican appointed but I won’t be sympathetic to any complaints even though - if they did rule in such a way - their decision would be as wrong as Colorado’s SC.
The *Georgia* case seems more inclined to throw stuff at him that may or may not stick but the Georgia DA can only prosecute Georgia crimes.
to be backfiring.
What really is going to be interesting is if SCOTUS kicks out the interpretation used to convict Jan 6 rioters around disrupting ‘official’ proceedings which were originally provisions from the Sarbannes-Oxley 2002 Act post the Enron scandal. If they do that, then Trump’s prosecution by Smith in particular looks even more imperilled - as does the insurrection claims.
But, to go back to what I said, if the evidence against Trump is so strong on the insurrection claim, then he should be prosecuted - and, if he is not, that tells you something about how viable a claim it is.
NEW THREAD
To think of the kind of absolute scum who now run under his party's banner, it's quite incredible.