AS DID YOUR HOME STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, NIMARATA
Honestly, I think you could make a pretty good case that this statement is "aid and/or comfort" to insurrectionists, and thus disqualifies Haley to hold federal office under the 14th amendment.
They didn't just lose the war.
They lost a fucking SCOTUS case in 1869 that said states do not have the Constitutionality to leave the Union. And the best part is, that case was called Texas vs. White. Texas has lost this fight twice.
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
The irony of the fact that conservatives want no-fault divorces for women.
Beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous.
I learned from Texas public school teachers in the 1990s that Texas is the only state that has the right to secede because of its state constitution, and I’m sure they’re still teaching that bullshit today. Yet they somehow ran out of time to mention TX v. White, but is anyone surprised?
Honestly, they probably didn't know. I don't think anyone is taught about it because we all just kind of assume that traitors losing the war would put the matter to rest. Turns out, they think it means they should try again.
That female pronoun for a state is awkward as fuck. Hope that isn't Wikipedia.
And I think we need to start pushing those cases hard, right now. These days you throw a fucken rock and it seems to hit 12 loser larpers before it even starts to wane.
We've had one war, yes. But what about a second war?
This is what happens when you let your enemies live and then give them full freedom to coalesce once more over a century and keep waging war against you along the way while you're fiddling your thumbs.
Booth's actions in April 1865 gave the Confederacy its best chance at returning. If Lincoln has presided over reconstruction, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I am a hobby historian but I am not that deep (yet) into US history for me to have an opinion on (this specific) topic. :)
Mind expanding on it?
Sure! So, when Lincoln, a Republican, ran for reelection in 1864, he chose as his running mate Andrew Johnson who, while a staunch unionist and opponent of secession, was a Southern Democrat from Tennessee, a Confederate state. Johnson was chosen as Lincoln's running mate as an attempted symbol of national unity, but they clashed on many political views.
Lincoln's plan for reconstruction was quite moderate. He wanted to allow the rebel states back into the union with mild changes and concessions, including that the rejoining states would not be led by anyone who had rebelled against the Union; he supported some level of civil rights for freed slaves; and there are some historians who argue that he had also signaled a support for Black suffrage.
However, upon his assassination, Lincoln's moderate plan was tossed out in favor of Johnson's coddling approach. Johnson was an anti-abolitionist, and showed no interest in providing any protections for freed Black people. He welcomed former Confederate states back in with little to no changes to structure or concessions following the war. He also vetoed attempts by the Republican Congress to limit the former Confederate states' ability to pass Jim Crow laws or allow former rebels to serve in positions of leadership again.
Were Lincoln alive to see reconstruction through, I believe the southern "Lost Cause" narrative would've withered and died on the vine, and civil rights would've been settled a century before it was litigated in reality. The South would've felt their loss and been chastised, rather than simply welcomed back with open arms. And people who had rebelled would have rightly been put out of public view and made to live out the rest of their lives in relative solitude.
That's interesting, he was re-elected during an ongoing civil war? I would think he'd be assumed to effectively be in a state of dictatorship (in the classic Roman sense of war-time appointee as commander-in-chief under martial law) under such circumstances.
During 1861-65, how did that work for the confederacy, did they hold elections too? If not, who was in charge? I ask as you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, and it is hard finding resources to learn more in depth about certain aspects of your history- asking a human is always the best option, always.
I will have to look up reconstruction, never delved that deep but when I think of it yeah damn, figuring out how to set up and manage post-war society must have been a pretty tough nut to crack. How would you even enforce it and avoid partisans and guerrilla warfare? Very interesting.
Edit: And THANK YOU for taking the time! :) <3
That's interesting, he was re-elected during an ongoing civil war?
Presidential elections are carried out every four years, regardless of outside activities. I believe the duration of the presidential term is actually constitutionally inviolable, largely because the USA was instituted as an explicitly anti-monarchical nation.
I would think he'd be assumed to effectively be in a state of dictatorship (in the classic Roman sense of war-time appointee as commander-in-chief under martial law) under such circumstances.
I think Caesar himself shows the danger of such a thing. It would certainly be a hard sell for most American voters, including myself.
During 1861-65, how did that work for the confederacy, did they hold elections too?
They did. They elected a man by the name of Jefferson Davis to serve as president of their rebel state.
you seem very knowledgeable on the subject,
I'm fascinated by history myself. I call myself an amateur or hobbyist historian, though really I'm just an amateur knower-of-things.
I will have to look up reconstruction, never delved that deep but when I think of it yeah damn, figuring out how to set up and manage post-war society must have been a pretty tough nut to crack. How would you even enforce it and avoid partisans and guerrilla warfare?
It's absolutely a fascinating time of history. The statement that you'll often see in accounts of the American Civil War is "brother against brother," and that's really what it was. Families and communities were torn apart by the conflict, and so their reconstitution had to be a careful process. I would argue that, in the end, it was not careful enough.
We settled this 150 years ago
There was a war
YOU LOST
TEXAS, SPECIFICALLY, LOST
AS DID YOUR HOME STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, NIMARATA
Honestly, I think you could make a pretty good case that this statement is "aid and/or comfort" to insurrectionists, and thus disqualifies Haley to hold federal office under the 14th amendment.
They didn't just lose the war.
They lost a fucking SCOTUS case in 1869 that said states do not have the Constitutionality to leave the Union. And the best part is, that case was called Texas vs. White. Texas has lost this fight twice.
The irony of the fact that conservatives want no-fault divorces for women.
Beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous.
I learned from Texas public school teachers in the 1990s that Texas is the only state that has the right to secede because of its state constitution, and I’m sure they’re still teaching that bullshit today. Yet they somehow ran out of time to mention TX v. White, but is anyone surprised?
Honestly, they probably didn't know. I don't think anyone is taught about it because we all just kind of assume that traitors losing the war would put the matter to rest. Turns out, they think it means they should try again.
That female pronoun for a state is awkward as fuck. Hope that isn't Wikipedia.
And I think we need to start pushing those cases hard, right now. These days you throw a fucken rock and it seems to hit 12 loser larpers before it even starts to wane.
We've had one war, yes. But what about a second war?
This is what happens when you let your enemies live and then give them full freedom to coalesce once more over a century and keep waging war against you along the way while you're fiddling your thumbs.
Booth's actions in April 1865 gave the Confederacy its best chance at returning. If Lincoln has presided over reconstruction, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I am a hobby historian but I am not that deep (yet) into US history for me to have an opinion on (this specific) topic. :)
Mind expanding on it?
Sure! So, when Lincoln, a Republican, ran for reelection in 1864, he chose as his running mate Andrew Johnson who, while a staunch unionist and opponent of secession, was a Southern Democrat from Tennessee, a Confederate state. Johnson was chosen as Lincoln's running mate as an attempted symbol of national unity, but they clashed on many political views.
Lincoln's plan for reconstruction was quite moderate. He wanted to allow the rebel states back into the union with mild changes and concessions, including that the rejoining states would not be led by anyone who had rebelled against the Union; he supported some level of civil rights for freed slaves; and there are some historians who argue that he had also signaled a support for Black suffrage.
However, upon his assassination, Lincoln's moderate plan was tossed out in favor of Johnson's coddling approach. Johnson was an anti-abolitionist, and showed no interest in providing any protections for freed Black people. He welcomed former Confederate states back in with little to no changes to structure or concessions following the war. He also vetoed attempts by the Republican Congress to limit the former Confederate states' ability to pass Jim Crow laws or allow former rebels to serve in positions of leadership again.
Were Lincoln alive to see reconstruction through, I believe the southern "Lost Cause" narrative would've withered and died on the vine, and civil rights would've been settled a century before it was litigated in reality. The South would've felt their loss and been chastised, rather than simply welcomed back with open arms. And people who had rebelled would have rightly been put out of public view and made to live out the rest of their lives in relative solitude.
That's interesting, he was re-elected during an ongoing civil war? I would think he'd be assumed to effectively be in a state of dictatorship (in the classic Roman sense of war-time appointee as commander-in-chief under martial law) under such circumstances.
During 1861-65, how did that work for the confederacy, did they hold elections too? If not, who was in charge? I ask as you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, and it is hard finding resources to learn more in depth about certain aspects of your history- asking a human is always the best option, always.
I will have to look up reconstruction, never delved that deep but when I think of it yeah damn, figuring out how to set up and manage post-war society must have been a pretty tough nut to crack. How would you even enforce it and avoid partisans and guerrilla warfare? Very interesting.
Edit: And THANK YOU for taking the time! :) <3
Presidential elections are carried out every four years, regardless of outside activities. I believe the duration of the presidential term is actually constitutionally inviolable, largely because the USA was instituted as an explicitly anti-monarchical nation.
I think Caesar himself shows the danger of such a thing. It would certainly be a hard sell for most American voters, including myself.
They did. They elected a man by the name of Jefferson Davis to serve as president of their rebel state.
I'm fascinated by history myself. I call myself an amateur or hobbyist historian, though really I'm just an amateur knower-of-things.
It's absolutely a fascinating time of history. The statement that you'll often see in accounts of the American Civil War is "brother against brother," and that's really what it was. Families and communities were torn apart by the conflict, and so their reconstitution had to be a careful process. I would argue that, in the end, it was not careful enough.
Great questions. Thank you!