Posted on 12/28/2023 7:26:59 AM PST by Fiji Hill
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley sparked a backlash on social media, including from conservatives, after she was asked about the cause of the Civil War and didn't mention slavery in her answer.
Haley, who served six years as South Carolina's governor and then two years as the ambassador to the United Nations, was asked by a voter during a town hall in Berlin, New Hampshire, on Wednesday to identify the cause of the Civil War.
"I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run," she said. "The freedoms and what people could and couldn't do. What do you think the cause of the Civil War was?"
The man who asked the question replied that he was not the one running for president and wanted to hear her answer.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Have never heard that statement attributed to Grant. Thanks
Believe you are referring to the incident at Fort Barracus.
The garrison commander fired at some Florida militia on the 9th of January 1861. The next day he moved his 80 some odd soldiers and sailors across Pensacola Bay to Fort Pickens on Santa Rosa Island.
In his Personal Memoirs, chapter 16, Grant writes in part:
“The problem (withdrawal from the union) changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least as far as the new States themselves were concerned.”
Thanks
The decision by uniparty and NRO and daily wire and some here to demonize white southerners history to deflect racism charges against the GOPe a generation ago pretty much in line with Bushisms
Demonstrates their treachery and arrogance and dishonesty
The denunciation of Trent Lott over his Thurmond salutation was maybe the first major shot
Trump to his credit
A post bellum Yankee if ever there was one has defended us to his everlasting credit
Many of those Goldberg Shapiro types here don’t like Trump either
Coincidence?
You are likely right. I have never paid a great deal of attention to the doings in Pensacola because I have always considered it to be a backwater of the war. When I think of Pensacola, I think of Fort Pickens, so I may very well have mispoke on that point.
Slavery slavery slavery. OK I repeated it 3 times and it still don’t make it so.
That is along the same lines, but does not go quite so far as the commenter asserted Grant said.
I'll see if I can find the original statement by the commenter.
Here is what he said:
The South started the war over slavery. The north went to war over secession. Slavery was a pressing moral question, but secession was a much different question indeed. In fact Ulysses S Grant himself said that anyone that was one of the original 13 colonies most certainly had the right to secede. He stressed that they had no right to take any parts of the Louisiana Purchase with them.
And you can find the original at this guy's discus commentary.
LOL. Not for slavery as an evil but for economics as I said every time. But slavery was part of the economic issue. Have a good day.
No. I did not research for that reason. You have an incorrect assumption about my position. Haley is a birdbrain and her slapdash superficial explanation of the cause of the war exhibits her lack of understanding and integrity. That is my sole dog in the fight. I looked up the amendment so that I would not risk joining Nimrata in the birdbrain category. Thank you for adding to my understanding of the complexities of that time in history.
Just say it an move on.
Thankfully she will never be anywhere near the Whitehouse.
I agree.
Grant also said he believed that if any of the original thirteen states had attempted to secede from the Union under the Articles of Confederation, their right to do so would not have been challenged. Said Grant:
“If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted.” (The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, p. 130)
Grant's Memoirs, 2 Vols
Volume I, Chap 16, at unnumbered page 95 of the PDF I made of the two volumes.
Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship—on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror— must be the result.
In the case of the war between the States it would have been the exact truth if the South had said,—"We do not want to live with you Northern people any longer; we know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you are growing numerically stronger than we, it may at some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the North to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You have been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you did not intend to continue so, and we will remain in the Union no longer." Instead of this the seceding States cried lustily,—"Let us alone; you have no constitutional power to interfere with us." Newspapers and people at the North reiterated the cry.
Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the Nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves. The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.
But the Democrat Party that controlled the south in the 1850s is the time is the same Democrat Party that imposed Dred Scott onto the nation at that time.
In Dred Scott, the Court found the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and, therefore, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The Mandate in Scott made that point very clearly. They remanded the case back to the Circuit Court with instructions for that court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction for that court to hear it in the first place.
Missouri, C.C.U.S.No. 7
Dred Scott, Ptff. in Er.
vs.
John F.A. SandfordFiled 30th December 1854.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
March 6th, 1857. —
- - - - - - - - - -
No. 7
Ptff. in Er.
Dred Scott
vs.
John F.A. SandfordIn error to the Circuit Court of the United Stated for the District of Missouri.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed for the want of jurisdiction in that court and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court with directions to dismiss the case for the want of jurisdiction in that court. —
Ch. Jus. Taney
6th March 1857
The actual owner of Dred Scott was a Massachusetts Republican abolitionist Congressman named Calvin Chaffee. Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857) was decided March 6, 1857. In May 1857, Massachusetts Republican Abolitionist Congressman Calvin Chaffee executed a quitclaim deed in favor of Taylor Blow in Missouri giving Blow ownership of Dred Scott and family. On May 26, 1857 Taylor Blow emancipated the Scotts.
New York Times, “Emancipation of Dred Scott and Family,” May 27, 1857
Emancipation of Dred Scott and Family.ST. LOUIS, Tuesday May 26.
DRED SCOTT, with his wife and two daughters, were emancipated today by TAYLOR BLOW, Esq. They had all been conveyed to him by Mr. CHAFFE, of Massachusetts, for that purpose, as the law of this State on the subject requires, that the emancipation shall be performed by a citizen of Missouri. ...
- - - - -
26 Saint Louis Circuit Court Record 2631
Tuesday May 26th 1857Taylor Blow, who is personally known to the court, comes into open court, and acknowledges the execution by him of a Deed of Emancipation to his slaves, Dred Scott, aged about forty eight years, of full negro blood and color, and Harriet Scott wife of said Dred, aged thirty nine years, also of full negro blood & color, and Eliza Scott a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged nineteen years of full negro color, and Lizzy Scott, also a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged ten years likewise of full negro blood & color.
1 26 Saint Louis Circuit Record 263
Grant's Memoirs, 2 Vols
Volume I, Chap 16, at unnumbered page 95 of the PDF I made of the two volumes.
Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship—on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror— must be the result.
In the case of the war between the States it would have been the exact truth if the South had said,—"We do not want to live with you Northern people any longer; we know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you are growing numerically stronger than we, it may at some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the North to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You have been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you did not intend to continue so, and we will remain in the Union no longer." Instead of this the seceding States cried lustily,—"Let us alone; you have no constitutional power to interfere with us." Newspapers and people at the North reiterated the cry.
Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the Nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves. The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.
” They (government) don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. “
Except that she DOES tell you you shouldn’t be able to be anonymous in expressing opinions. And she DOES tell citizens they must forfeit their important flags and monuments.
Talk is cheap. She’d basically be a dictator.
i take it you must be a yankee and unfamiliar with State’s Rights or the Tenth Amendment.
I received an update from the guy. He said:
"It's on page 121; Chernow summarizes that part of Grant's statement, then quotes the second part in which he denies that Florida or any state west of the Mississippi had the right."
I don't have a copy. Perhaps you do?
A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
Here the line of distinction is drawn in express words. Persons of color, in the judgment of Congress, were not included in the word citizens, and they are described as another and different class of persons, and authorized to be employed, if born in the United States.
And these rights are of a character and weald lead to consequences, which make it absolutely certain that the African race were not included under the name of citizens of a State, and were not in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution when these privileges and immunities were provided for the protection of the citizen in other States.
Thus, in multiple places of the Dred Scott decision, the Dim majority SCOTUS wrote that blacks ain't never gonna be naturalized citizens and have the rights of citizens. It was a shot across the bow to the abolitionists trying to win at the state level, that the Dims decided otherwise at the federal level. Thus, the Christian abolitionists (Republicans) changed tactics to try to win at the federal level through Congress. Which is what the Dims feared with Republicans taking over Congress and the WH in the 1860 election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.