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

Skip to comments.

On Democrats and slavery, Nikki Haley needs to learn to play hardball; So Should Every Republican Candidate
American Thinker ^ | 12/29/2023 | John M. Grondelski

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: civilwar; nikkihaley; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-159 next last
To: Bubba_Leroy

Thanks for the very useful information.


61 posted on 12/29/2023 10:50:03 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Well... If that’s the case, then he did a very bad job of it.


62 posted on 12/29/2023 10:52:18 AM PST by jerod (Nazis were essentially Socialist in Hugo Boss uniforms... Get over it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: rey
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. 

SOURCE PAGE


63 posted on 12/29/2023 10:52:36 AM PST by justme4now (Our Right's are God given and I don't need permission from politicians or courts to exercise them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

Thanks for the additional information.

Generally, support for the Corwin Amendment split largely along sectional lines: Northern Democrats and Republicans (though many Republicans opposed it) were more likely to support it, hoping to appease Southern states and prevent secession.

In contrast, Southern Democrats overwhelmingly opposed it, as it wouldn’t fully secure their existing slavery rights.


64 posted on 12/29/2023 10:53:01 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
And no switcheroo between the Stupid Party and the ‘Rats ever happened. Not even in the ‘60s.

So how do you explain blacks going from voting 100% Republican in 1868, to 95% Democrat in 2020?

65 posted on 12/29/2023 10:55:04 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe
Tariffs are not paid on exports. No goods grown or manufactured in any Southern state was subject to a tariff. Tariffs are collected on imported material and goods.

You know what he means. Imports are paid for by exports, so economically, it is the exact same thing.

Whether you tax what goes into the horses mouth, or comes out of the horses butt, it's the same thing being taxed.

66 posted on 12/29/2023 10:57:28 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Reily
The US Constitution tolerated slavery because at the time of its ratification slavery was an on-going institution internal to certain states.

Meaning all but Massachusetts, I think. I think in 1787, all the rest were slave states, which is a very different thing than you imply in your statement.

To call the US Constitution pro-slavery is simply disingenuous! It simply tolerated it.

I would say Article IV, Section 2 goes way beyond "tolerating" it. It requires action of the state to enforce it. It compels *ALL* states to engage in slavery enforcement.

Yes, the US constitution tiptoes around the word "slavery", but those "held to labor by the laws of any state", means "slave." They were squeamish about using the word, but you can read between the lines and understand the US Constitution is referring to slaves and slavery.

67 posted on 12/29/2023 11:11:55 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin
“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.”

Sounds like hostage taking, selective enforcement of the law, lawfare, antifa, and all the same sort of crap liberals are doing today.

The Feds should have came in and stomped everyone trying to interfere with the legal agents tasked with the enforcement of the law.

If refusing to follow the law is a valid choice, you have no argument to make when the Confederates chose to decide what the law was themselves.

As Grant said, the quickest way to repeal a bad law is by it's strict enforcement. It is not up to individuals to decide what laws they don't have to obey.

68 posted on 12/29/2023 11:18:30 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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.

Don't tell me what their asserted reasons are for supporting a permanent slavery amendment. Politicians lie, and they do so effortlessly.

The point here is that *REPUBLICANS* were the chief proponents of this permanent slavery amendment. I don't want to hear their words of explanation. Nothing they say can explain why they voted to keep slavery forever.

The only thing that makes any sense is that something was more important to them than a concern about slavery, and that something made them vote for it.

I think that something was money because i'm cynical that way, and when you look at any issue in Washington DC, you find at some point it always boils down to someone getting money.

The amendment never officially became part of the Constitution.

Is irrelevant to the fact they voted for it. Someone shoots at you and misses, it doesn't mean that they didn't shoot at you. It means they *MISSED*! Their evil intent was still there, they were just not successful at carrying it through.

69 posted on 12/29/2023 11:24:25 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: jerod
Well... If that’s the case, then he did a very bad job of it.

It was like all other politicians promises. If they don't yield the results they want, they change them. Lincoln didn't get what he wanted (continuing revenue from the Southern states) and so after nearly 2 years of war, he took a different tack.

70 posted on 12/29/2023 11:27:01 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe

Anything shipped from the south overseas, particularly to Britain, was heavily taxed then. Call it an export tax.


71 posted on 12/29/2023 12:23:51 PM PST by rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

RE: The only thing that makes any sense is that something was more important to them than a concern about slavery, and that something made them vote for it. I think that something was money.

——————————

It’s not as easy as one would want to make it sound. We do not know what goes on in the minds of individuals when it came to voting for or against the amendment.

You may have your own beliefs, but for me, the priorities of preserving the union AND trying to prevent a disastrous war played a larger role over wanting to preserve slavery in their vote.

And it still does not refute the fact that MORE Republicans opposed slavery and wanted it abolished than Democrats.


72 posted on 12/29/2023 12:57:43 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rey

Please give me the Law, passed by the Congress of the United States that taxed Southern exports.


73 posted on 12/29/2023 1:02:34 PM PST by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

RE: the only thing that makes any sense is that something was more important to them than a concern about slavery, and that something made them vote for it.

Yes, that something was the preservation of the USA *AND* the prevention of war.

Also, most Republicans in Congress *did not vote* for the Corwin Amendment. While the amendment originated from within the Whig Party, which later fragmented into the Republican and Democratic parties, the vote on it did not follow clear party lines.

The amendment passed the House by a vote of 133 to 65. However, this included only 33 of the Republican representatives at the time. The majority of Republicans actually voted against the proposal, joining forces with many Northern Democrats opposed to protecting slavery.

The amendment failed to reach the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate, falling short by one vote. Among the 26 senators who voted, only 6 were Republicans, and all six voted in favor of the amendment.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS VOTED AGAINST IT!

Therefore, we can say that SOME Republicans supported the Corwin Amendment. The issue of slavery transcended party lines, and many Republicans, particularly those from anti-slavery Northern states, opposed the attempt to institutionalize slavery permanently.

Those who voted for it had their own agenda. But I am unable to say for what reason. As a Diogenes-like cynic, you are entitled to your personal opinion. I remain convinced that preserving the USA and preventing a disastrous war was the more overriding reason.

It’s important to remember that the political landscape in the 1860s was quite complex, with evolving party alignments and diverse views on slavery within each party. Analyzing the Corwin Amendment solely through the lens of Republican Party affiliation wouldn’t provide a complete picture of the motivations and voting patterns surrounding this controversial proposal.


74 posted on 12/29/2023 1:13:25 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

Of course not. I constitution speaks to that. It says no state may be form from a part of a state without the permission of the larger entity. Try explaining that to Virginia when it comes to West Virginia.


75 posted on 12/29/2023 1:16:37 PM PST by Captain Jack Aubrey (There's not a moment to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin

No one was killed. Happy now.?


76 posted on 12/29/2023 1:18:02 PM PST by Captain Jack Aubrey (There's not a moment to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin

Yes, and so what? That bound the US, not the states.


77 posted on 12/29/2023 1:19:33 PM PST by Captain Jack Aubrey (There's not a moment to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

What does the Supreme Court know about the constitution? What’s wrong with its own words?


78 posted on 12/29/2023 1:21:37 PM PST by Captain Jack Aubrey (There's not a moment to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Just say, “The Civil War ended over 150 years ago...next question!”


79 posted on 12/29/2023 1:24:32 PM PST by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Jack Aubrey

Go firm a Confederate Island somewhere. You live in The United States.


80 posted on 12/29/2023 1:25:35 PM PST by cowboyusa (YESHUA IS KING OF AMERICA! DEATH TO MARXISM AND LEFTISM! AMERICA, COWBOY UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-159 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