this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
130 points (95.8% liked)

politics

18074 readers
3453 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Voters will decide the unresolved question of the civil war: do we move backwards, or forwards toward true democracy?

Nikki Haley’s difficulty articulating the cause of the civil war – the war that began in her home state of South Carolina – has put that issue in the headlines just days before the first votes are cast in the Republican nomination contest. While Haley was caught trying to be too clever by half in refusing to name slavery as the cause of the nation’s bloodiest conflict, the controversy has had the unintended effect of framing what is facing the country’s voters in 2024.

This year’s election is, in fact, a continuation of the unresolved question of the civil war era: will the country continue to move towards fostering a multiracial democracy, or will it aggressively reject its growing diversity and attempt to make America white again?

...

The current conundrum is important not just because of Haley, who is emerging as Trump’s strongest competitor in the Republican field, but because of what it reveals about politics in this country in general and in the Republican party in particular.

Boiled down to its essence, much of the country – and most of the Republican voters – are still fighting the cause of the civil war in ways both literal and figurative. The active and organized resistance to removing Confederate statues led a mob of white nationalists to march through the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 chanting “Jews will not replace us”; one Hitler-loving member of the crowd gunned his car into a group of counterprotesters, killing a woman, Heather Heyer, who had come to stand for racial tolerance and peace. That was the protest of which then president Trump observed: “There are good people on both sides.”

all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 43 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The failure of Reconstruction to continue long enough and intensely enough has plagued this country with almost a century and half of misery.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

people of late decry how divided this country has become. but, no… this country has always been divided between those of good faith and good conscience who would treat others with fairness and equity, and those of bad faith and no conscience, who see themselves as above others and in-groups as above out-groups, and who have no interest in a fair and free democracy.

the only difference, as of late, is that the latter group no longer pretends to be part of the former group.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I absolutely believe this would be a better country if Reconstruction had been followed to it's end

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It set race relations in this country back 100 years. Almost literally. In the early 1870s, segregation was outlawed by President Grant's administration.

And then, in the 1960s, segregation was outlawed again.

[–] Ensign_Crab 2 points 5 months ago

Incrementalism at work. One huge step backwards, 90 years to undo it.

[–] Ghostalmedia 37 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In case anyone is curious about the reasons the seceding states gave when they left the union, just scroll to a state’s name in this doc and read the first few sentences.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

(Spoiler alert: they wanted to enslave black people and treat them like property)

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


On the one hand, she is eagerly embraced as a high-profile party symbol who serves as a strong rebuttal to accusations of racism and sexism (“See, we’re not racist and sexist, we have a woman of color as our governor!”).

On the other hand, white racial resentment serves as fuel for the Trump movement to the extent that no presidential candidate can hope to win the nomination without bending a knee to the Confederate cause.

This high-wire act was most prominently on display in 2015, when a white man who had proudly posed with pictures of the Confederate flag walked into the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church in South Carolina, declared, “You rape our women.

The active and organized resistance to removing Confederate statues led a mob of white nationalists to march through the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 chanting “Jews will not replace us”; one Hitler-loving member of the crowd gunned his car into a group of counterprotesters, killing a woman, Heather Heyer, who had come to stand for racial tolerance and peace.

If the size and power of the constituency that will brook no retreat on the cause of the Confederacy is so large that a leading presidential candidate can’t even state the simple fact that the civil war was about slavery, then the stakes in 2024 should be crystal clear.

To do that, we need to do what Nikki Haley can’t or won’t – state clearly why the civil war started, declare our determination to finish the job of reconstructing this nation and do everything we can to ensure massive voter turnout in November.


The original article contains 1,112 words, the summary contains 268 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!