All true. And yet she could have answered the question easily just like this: "In 1860 anti slavery Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln was elected president on a platform to restrict slavery to where it presently existed and to ban it in the territories. As a result 13 slave states announced their secession from the Union. The war was fought because Lincoln and the Union did not accept the validity of secession and considered those states in rebellion."
Yes, she flubbed it, and your answer would have been much better. Slavery and its enormous economic, political and moral implications for the Union was the key. But the question I wanted to address was why the media has gone blank on the origin of the question -- a valuable and telling story in its own right.
IF Anyone is interested may I (highly) recommend for a DEEP DIVE Allan Nevins "Ordeal Of The Union" 8 Volumes Hard to find, Expensive but IMO well worth time and money.
As an aside it is said history doesn't repeat itself, but does rhyme. I can see similarities between the politics then and now.
It was a silly issue to start and I am not surprised it was a plant. But why did she keep digging deeper over the next several days. Why not just say, "oops I flubbed that one and went into campaign-speak braln-lock as we candidates sometimes do." I disregarded this story at first. Hearing her mess up repeatedly over the next few days began to give me doubts. DeSantis does not get defensive, or not nearly so easily or badly.
Self justification and the reluctance to admit error are two of the strongest traits of human character I've come across. Hats off to any politician who has less of them than most of the rest of us.
Lincoln himself recognized that slavery was the ultimate, but not the proximate, or immediate, cause of the war. In his Second Inaugural Address he recognized that slavery was "somehow" the cause of the war, but said "the war came" because one side "would make war rather than let the nation survive," while the other side "would accept war rather than let it perish." As Mr. Israel notes, if Lincoln had recognized a right of secession there would have been no war. Jim Dueholm
All true. And yet she could have answered the question easily just like this: "In 1860 anti slavery Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln was elected president on a platform to restrict slavery to where it presently existed and to ban it in the territories. As a result 13 slave states announced their secession from the Union. The war was fought because Lincoln and the Union did not accept the validity of secession and considered those states in rebellion."
Yes, she flubbed it, and your answer would have been much better. Slavery and its enormous economic, political and moral implications for the Union was the key. But the question I wanted to address was why the media has gone blank on the origin of the question -- a valuable and telling story in its own right.
There are things I like about her, but IMO Not Gonna Happen.
IF Anyone is interested may I (highly) recommend for a DEEP DIVE Allan Nevins "Ordeal Of The Union" 8 Volumes Hard to find, Expensive but IMO well worth time and money.
As an aside it is said history doesn't repeat itself, but does rhyme. I can see similarities between the politics then and now.
It was a silly issue to start and I am not surprised it was a plant. But why did she keep digging deeper over the next several days. Why not just say, "oops I flubbed that one and went into campaign-speak braln-lock as we candidates sometimes do." I disregarded this story at first. Hearing her mess up repeatedly over the next few days began to give me doubts. DeSantis does not get defensive, or not nearly so easily or badly.
Self justification and the reluctance to admit error are two of the strongest traits of human character I've come across. Hats off to any politician who has less of them than most of the rest of us.
Yes you are right. I am certain this was a plant.
Lincoln himself recognized that slavery was the ultimate, but not the proximate, or immediate, cause of the war. In his Second Inaugural Address he recognized that slavery was "somehow" the cause of the war, but said "the war came" because one side "would make war rather than let the nation survive," while the other side "would accept war rather than let it perish." As Mr. Israel notes, if Lincoln had recognized a right of secession there would have been no war. Jim Dueholm