Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nikki Haley's Civil War Remarks Spark Backlash From Conservatives
Newspeak ^ | December 28, 2023 | Khaleda Rahman

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: civilwar; nikkihaley
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-142 next last
To: bray
The North was also taxing them on their cotton and denying them steel for their railroads.

Indirectly. They were taxing the goods their cotton bought in Europe, and making the price of steel artificially high due to protectionist laws put in place by the Northern controlled congress.

The North was milking the South on both ends. The South was producing 72% of the total tax revenue for the Nation. The North, with it's four times larger population was only producing 28% of the tax money necessary to run Washington DC.

And they liked it that way.

61 posted on 12/28/2023 11:29:34 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

Ask Brandon. He was there.


62 posted on 12/28/2023 11:30:14 AM PST by Libloather (Why do climate change hoax deniers live in mansions on the beach?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tell It Right
So the Confederate Dim leaders began a history revision of making up other reasons they broke away from the union.

Yeah, they made up the fact that the North was controlling 700 million per year in Southern trade, keeping the lions share of that money, and wanting that arrangement to continue when the South wanted out of it.

People will lie. Money tells the truth. The North invaded the South to keep control of that money. They didn't care about the slaves, or they would not have passed the Corwin Amendment.

63 posted on 12/28/2023 11:33:18 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tell It Right

GOD bless the brave Jacksonian Southern Unionists!


64 posted on 12/28/2023 11:38:23 AM PST by cowboyusa (YESHUA IS KING OF AMERICA! DEATH TO MARXISM AND LEFTISM! AMERICA, COWBOY UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Socon-Econ
True, but the overriding “dispute” was about slavery. There were other disputes adding to the bitterness, such as tariffs; but without the dispute over slavery, there would have been no civil war.

We've all been taught this myth, but the Corwin Amendment proves it is incorrect. In March of 1861, the Republican controlled congress voted by over a 2/3rds margin in the House and Senate to pass this permanent slavery amendment to the Constitution.

So slavery was freely handed to the Southern states in perpetuity if they would just come back into the Union.

And *THAT* is why the war wasn't really about slavery. The North offered it as a deal, and the South didn't take it. If slavery was the issue, the North would not have offered it, and the South would have quickly taken it.

Clearly permanently legal slavery didn't really mean anything to either side.

65 posted on 12/28/2023 11:38:31 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Treason meant more to the Confederacy.


66 posted on 12/28/2023 11:39:22 AM PST by cowboyusa (YESHUA IS KING OF AMERICA! DEATH TO MARXISM AND LEFTISM! AMERICA, COWBOY UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe
We and an economic embargo against Japan for such items as Oil, steel, scrap metals,etc.

A blockade would have involved U.S. Navy ships steaming outside Japanese harbors physically preventing ships from entering or leaving.

You do tend to be precise.

67 posted on 12/28/2023 11:40:24 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

Haley’s inability to field this question intelligently reflects poorly on her as a candidate.

US presidents should have a firm grasp on essential issues in American history. Given South Carolina’s role in causing the CW, her ignorance on this issue makes you wonder if children brought up by non-Americans might not really get American history and everything it means with depth or nuance.

Candidates should expect gotcha questions, should think on their feet, and be able to deliver unembarassing answers. With a solid answer she could have made this question into a winner (in which case we’d never have heard about this...).


68 posted on 12/28/2023 11:49:04 AM PST by Chewbarkah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyusa

I have always thought that Trump had a lot in common with Andrew Jackson, but I imagine he has more in common with Teddy Roosevelt.


69 posted on 12/28/2023 11:52:06 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: redangus
And the push by the federal government to end slavery and the push back from the large southern landowners is what led to the firing on Ft. Sumter.

Well, Lincoln ordering Federal ships to attack them first had more to do with it.

Did you know about that?

70 posted on 12/28/2023 11:54:26 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tell It Right
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.

How did they do that?

71 posted on 12/28/2023 11:57:18 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Gil4
The argument prior to the war was about stopping the expansion of slavery into newly acquired territories.

The propaganda spread before the war was that slavery would "expand." The reality was that this was impossible. You could not grow any cash crops that used large numbers of slaves in any of the territories. It simply could not happen, yet people kept trying to terrify people with the idea that the territories would be taken over by slavery.

It was just a lie told for political gain to maintain Northern control of the Congress, because through that control they had created a money stream from Southern pockets into Northern pockets, so of course they would lie to keep those money streams flowing.

72 posted on 12/28/2023 12:01:00 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

No, TR was a flaming Liberal.


73 posted on 12/28/2023 12:01:53 PM PST by cowboyusa (YESHUA IS KING OF AMERICA! DEATH TO MARXISM AND LEFTISM! AMERICA, COWBOY UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
especially since the South precipitated the war.

How did the South precipitate the war?

74 posted on 12/28/2023 12:02:13 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade
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...

I take it you haven't read the Corwin Amendment, through which, Lincoln and his Republicans offered the south permanent slavery?

And you conspicuously leave Virginia out of your list of causes of secession. Why is that? Because it doesn't fit your narrative?

75 posted on 12/28/2023 12:04:25 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: cowboyusa
Treason meant more to the Confederacy.

When your own founding document, the Declaration of Independence, specifically says that all states have a right to leave, it isn't "treason" when some chose to do so. It is the exercising of a fundamental right granted by God as detailed in the Declaration of Independence.

76 posted on 12/28/2023 12:05:59 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Read the post you’re replying to for the answer to your question. The 1857 Dred Scott decision by the Dim majority SCOTUS took the argument away from the state level to the federal level.


77 posted on 12/28/2023 12:09:19 PM PST by Tell It Right (1st Thessalonians 5:21 -- Put everything to the test, hold fast to that which is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

We have been over this again and again, and again, but ok. The Confederacy FORBADE States from leaving in thier own Constitution. Texas WOULD NOT have stayed in the Confederacy for long.


78 posted on 12/28/2023 12:12:13 PM PST by cowboyusa (YESHUA IS KING OF AMERICA! DEATH TO MARXISM AND LEFTISM! AMERICA, COWBOY UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Tell It Right
Read the post you’re replying to for the answer to your question. The 1857 Dred Scott decision by the Dim majority SCOTUS took the argument away from the state level to the federal level.

You are dodging the question. What did the South do to force a one size fits all on the nation?

79 posted on 12/28/2023 12:13:13 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: cowboyusa
The Confederacy FORBADE States from leaving in thier own Constitution.

Yeah? What part? It's been a long time since I looked at the Confederate constitution, but when I did, you could clearly see it was modeled quite a lot after the US Constitution.

I have no recollection of them forbidding states from leaving, but if they did, it was a more clear indication that states could not do it than anything said in the US Constitution.

80 posted on 12/28/2023 12:15:50 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-142 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson