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 ...
Haley’s reply was lacking. The civil war was a battle over right and wrong and to purge a pestilence from the land.
That’s the purpose of the article. To get conservatives accustomed to defending her and give her a second look. Obvious to me but maybe not to everyone.
Andrew Jackson died in 1845, but he had backed the federal government vs South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833.
SJW virtue signalette to be sure
Spoken like a Yankee...
For several decades prior to the Civil War the Nation’s economy was largely dependent upon agricultural exports. The South funded our government. As we began to transition towards a more industrial economy, which rendered slavery obsolete, the North’s move to abruptly ban slavery would devastate the South’s economy. Considering the South’s contribution to the economic development of the country, the correct course of action would have allowed the South to transition away from slavery, in a manner that would allow the South to maintain a level of prosperity.
It’s taken the South over a hundred years to recover. The same “State’s rights” mentality is allowing Southern economies to thrive while the same Yankee mentality to force their ideologies on others is the root cause of the decline in Northern (and Democrat) run cities. The more things change the more they remain the same...
Pearl harbor wasnt planned out of nothing and for nothing.
As I recall, China did not attack and invade Japan slaughtering its inhabitants but rather the opposite. The U.S. did tell them not to do that. Was that wrong of us?
As for the Feds telling the states what to do, when it comes to slavery, Lincoln acknowledged that he had no power to limit slavery in the states where it existed, but threatened slavery by insisting it not expand into the territories. Southerners began secession upon Lincoln’s election and most had ‘left the Union’ before he took office.
There were numerous causes, of which slavery was only one. That’scthe correct answer.
Now the Northern an Southern partisans on this board will have at it as to who was right and who was wrong as well as what was the pestilence. The smoke never clears.
It’s a politician’s answer. She didn’t want to be pigeonholed.
“The freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do,” very much includes slavery, the main reason for the conflict between North and South.
I can see both conservatives and progressives not agreeing with her remarks (not everyone on the right is a Confederate sympathizer), but I don’t think anybody really cares.
“The title is misleading”
Of course it is and purposely so. These wretched people are rat propagandists. Everything they do is to help the rats, country be damned.
I agree 100% with that statement. But at the same time, since the post I replied to was about the civil war, don't overlook the Dims a century and a half ago forcing a one-size-fits-all of slavery onto non-slavery states. In the 1850's the new Republican party created by the Christian abolitionists was having some success at the state level, particularly as new states were being formed from western territories.
The Republicans were fine with honoring the Constitution's 10th Amendment and winning their argument at the state level (since the Constitution didn't allow the federal government to have much say on slavery/abolition). But that changed in 1857 when the Dim majority SCOTUS ruled in the Dred Scott case and stated, among other things, that blacks were to never be American citizens ... period. It didn't matter from then on what Republicans won at the state level -- blacks would always be stuck as slaves or some lower-tier immigrant class, even in abolitionist states, because the Dims were taking the argument to the federal level.
That's what triggered the Republicans to make their abolition argument at the federal level. It's the Dims, not the Republicans, who made slavery a federal argument.
Spoken like a Yankee...
Well, sorta. I'm from Alabama as with many generations of my father's family. But they hailed from The Free State of Winston County LOL. (Look up First Alabama Calvary, the Free State of Winston County, Looney's Tavern, and Double Springs, AL.)
Slavery was the wedge used to divide the states, to start a demoralizing, depopulating war and alter America from a union of individual, sovereign nation states governed by the people into one nation governed by elitists posing as representatives.
Nothing in this world reaches government level of success without PROMOTION. And nobody - nobody gets promotion without pledging out of desperation an oath of loyalty to the promoters and performing an act of debasement in front of them. It’s the old Faustian deal with the devil. If you want attention, you have to make arrangements with the secret gate keepers of the upper levels.
And what about these representatives who we outsouce our responsibility of participating in civilian government to? Are they really “of the people?” How much MONEY does it take to run for office? Could it be said that the only ones who can even run an election campaign are the ones who have been promoted to levels where free time and money are available for it, who’s names have bee pushed to notoriety in society? And just who are these promotion agents anyway, these secret gatekeepers who have power to promote or suppress one’s career?
That might have happened had the South not seceded. The argument prior to the war was about stopping the expansion of slavery into newly acquired territories. Abolition would probably have happened at some point, and it would never have been painless, but it probably wouldn't have happened as quickly and the concerns for the wealth of the South wouldn't have been ignored so callously if not for the war.
Not to my read.
There were economic & social differences between the North & South such that policies advocated by the North disadvantaged the economic stability of the South.
The Southern States seceded because they were unwilling to give up slavery and to allow new states where slavery was prohibited. It is naive not to recognize the economic advantage to the south from slavery when that factor was pivotal in the decision to secede.
The war was not started to free the slaves, especially since the South precipitated the war. However slavery was a huge factor.
Excellent post.
The South might not have succeded if that option had been on the table.
‘The yankees and the left want to preach that the Civil War was strictly about slavery, when States Rights and The Tenth Amendment were also very strong factors.’
I take it you haven’t read the Declarations of Cause from the states of TX,SC, GA. abd MS, explaining in great detail why they seceded from the union...
if you do read them, count the number of times slaves and slavery are mentioned...
‘the correct course of action would have allowed the South to transition away from slavery, in a manner that would allow the South to maintain a level of prosperity.’
sorry that’s baloney; the south was intensely involved in expanding slavery to the western territories because the institution had played out in the south...or are you seriously suggesting that the south had convinced themselves that slavery was no longer profitable and was prepared to let the institution die on the vine...?
‘The South might not have succeded if that option had been on the table.ized uppon ‘
please; nobody held a gun to the sotherners heads and ordered them to secede; secession was promulgated by hotheads in SC and GA and seized upon by other states as a signal of loyalty...
in no way was the south ‘forced’ to secede; they could have sought further compromise, as they did in 1850, they could have continued to advance their economic engines to a more enlightened view, they could have done a lot of things other than acting like spoiled teenagers because Abraham Lincoln was elected president...
We are all entitled to our opinion. I do not seek to dissuade you from yours. When one side expects the other to do the heavy lifting it doesn’t work out well.
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.