Posted on 12/29/2023 7:52:34 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Nikki Haley slavery tempest in a teapot continues to roil some circles.
For those who have a life and have been spending it with family and friends this Christmas, some background: The candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is in political hot water for her answer to a questioner at a New Hampshire campaign event in which she failed to list “slavery” among the causes of the American Civil War.
She’s subsequently admitted slavery was among those causes, while adding that she thought the question was posed by a Democrat plant in the audience.
The New York Times continues to stoke the story, claiming her answer could “dent her crossover appeal to independents and moderate Democrats.”
Three thoughts:
First, NEWS FLASH: For many of us challenged by the cost of living, the rise in crime, the influx of illegal aliens, and the woke agenda being pushed on cultural-social issues, the enumeration and hierarchy of causes for why something happened 163 years ago is something we do not care about. I’ll even venture to say that unless those “independents” caucus with the Democrats in legislative bodies, they also probably are not burning with concern about the ranked causes of the Civil War.
Second, the Democrat reaction to “of course it was about slavery” is rather rich. Given the historical illiteracy that dominates our schools (we have no time to teach history after spending time on gender, sex, and critical race theory lessons), let’s recall a few facts.
It was South Carolina Democrats, not a South Carolina Republican, who initiated the treason of secession.
It was mostly Democrats who, in the last days of the Democrat Buchanan administration, tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to preserve the Missouri Compromise and, thus, preserve slavery.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
If a politician makes a mistake, it is best to fess up and try to move forward by trying to minimize it.
She might say:
I was clearly wrong about the causation of the Civil War.
The Republican Party wanted to end slavery and it did so.
It was realized after the Civil War that the nation must move on and reunite and not dwell on the past.
I’ve always been a forward thinker and that’s what our nation badly needs.
A person who would feed on past grievances or abuses is not the right person to lead our great nation, reunited after great losses of lives and treasure.
I fully recognize the importance of not getting bogged down over trivialities or by frivolous people.
I pledge if made President to maintain a razor focus on the important work our nation needs to do such as....
Well... Thankfully, the right party won the presidential election.
“No person held in service...shall...be discharged...but shall be delivered up...”
I have no idea how many people were “delivered up” via governmental power. I suspect most escaped persons were simply snatched up by bounty hunters and transported back to the plantation.
I keep saying over and over that all this is just BS. The real issue that needs to seriously be addressed by the GOP is their RINO/Uni Party problem. Everything else is smoke and mirrors meant to gas light and deflect.
“Price found refuge in Oberlin until he was arrested on September 13, 1858, by a federal marshal authorized by the 1850 Act to capture Price and return him to slavery.”
“several of the men swept into the room where Price was being held, helping him escape and return to Oberlin. Once in Oberlin, those involved in his rescue acted quickly to secure Price’s escape to Canada, where he successfully found freedom.”
“Of the people involved with Price’s escape, 37 were indicted by a federal grand jury for having violated the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Authorities in Ohio, sympathetic to the rescuers and opposed to many provisions of the Act, reacted by arresting the federal marshal and other officers who captured Price, charging them with kidnapping. By April of 1859, federal and state authorities negotiated the release of both parties, with only two antislavery men being convicted and the remaining 35 released without charges. In return, Ohio authorities dropped the charges of kidnapping.”
You are not wrong.
Who cares? This is just finger pointing. If slavery is important let us talk about current day slavery of which there is a lot across the globe. If historical slavery is important then lets talk about all of it instead of just a sliver.
This is about nothing more than making the right evil.
Agree!
It was just an effort to trip up\trap a GOP politician. Goal to demonstrate they are racist against US Blacks.
One could see this as a possible sign Rats are worried about black turnout!
The above is not to be interpreted as an endorsement of Nikki Haley!
The party that voted to pass a constitutional amendment to enshrine slavery permanently into the US Constitution was the "Republicans."
Look up the Corwin Amendment, which passed the Republican controlled House and Senate by a 2/3rds margin.
So they are lying to you. They aren't telling you the truth.
I had never heard this before, and if it is actually true, it is a very interesting piece of information.
Here is the location of my last message on the subject which contains the man's statement.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4206327/posts?page=128#128
I think that every large national political organization whose members were slave owners and that publicly supported slavery before the Civil War, that incited the Civil War insurrection to keep their slaves, and that is still around today should be required to pay reparations to all of the living descendants of their members’ former slaves.
Let’s see, how many national political organizations would that include? I can only think of one and it starts with a D.
I agree with this. She has no good political instincts. It was a gotcha question and she should have just hammered the troll who asked it.
The Framers did not respect the requirements of the Articles of Confederation to the extent of actually obeying them when they called for the Constitutional convention.
The Articles required unanimous consent, which the framers ignored. The Articles required the participation of *ALL* states, but the Framers ignored that.
So if the Framers of the Constitution didn't take the articles seriously, why should anyone?
The Corwin Amendment, also known as House Joint Resolution 80, was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that emerged in 1861, right on the cusp of the American Civil War.
It was passed not because the Republicans WANT slavery to continue, but to appease Southern states and avert the war that would have killed and maimed millions of Americans by guaranteeing the federal government wouldn’t interfere with existing state laws, including those concerning slavery.
If ratified, the amendment would have prohibited Congress from abolishing or interfering with any state’s “domestic institutions,” including slavery, through future amendments.
However, the outbreak of the Civil War and secession of Southern states prevented the necessary ratification process from taking place. The amendment never officially became part of the Constitution.
Ther point was it was a desperate attempt to preserve the Union and avert the war, even through compromise on the sensitive issue of slavery.
Soviet courts convict dissidents. The Court does whatever the powers that be insist it do. To do otherwise would, as Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase said: "Lose in the courtroom everything you won on the battlefield."
He also said that "Secession is not Treason."
This was before the court cases to which you now refer.
So did Lincoln. Read his first inaugural address.
This statement just shows you don't know the full story.
Did you ever wonder *WHY* General Beauregard ordered the attack that early April morning?
And don't say "because he was ordered to." That's dodging the question. What real, compelling reason would the man have to do such a thing?
You've only learned the propaganda side of the story. You don't yet know the truth.
Also, when the Corwin Amendment was passed by the outgoing 36th Congress in March 1862, Republicans (who first came into existence as the anti-slavery party only six years before) only had a bare majority in the Senate and a plurality in the House because eight Southern States had already enacted ordinances of secession and taken their Democrat Congresscritters with them.
All remaining Democrats voted for it, joining with some Republicans to make the necessary 2/3 supermajority.
See also, Post #58.
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.