Nikki Haley slammed for not mentioning ‘slavery’ as cause of the Civil War in ‘word salad’ answer during town hall
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Democrats and supporters of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis criticized former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley on Wednesday after she refused to name slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War.
Haley, 51, made the apparent gaffe during a town hall event in Berlin, NH, after a voter asked the former United Nations ambassador to identify the cause of the deadliest war in American history.
The White House hopeful appeared caught off guard by the question and failed to mention the antebellum South’s “peculiar institution” in her response.
“I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run,” Haley said. “The freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do.”
“I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are,” Haley went on. “And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people.”
She continued her long-winded answer going off on a tangent on capitalism and First Amendment rights.
Nikki Haley was asked by a voter in New Hampshire about the cause of the Civil War, as she refused to name slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War. Kaitlan Collins/X
“It was never meant to be all things to all people,” the Republican presidential contender continued. “Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom.
“We need to have capitalism. We need to have economic freedom. We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way.”
The individual who posed the question to the candidate responded that it was “astonishing” to hear her answer “without mentioning the word slavery.”
Nikki Haley said “the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run.” Kaitlan Collins/X
“What do you want me to say about slavery? Next question,” Haley shot back.
President Biden’s X account shared a video of Haley’s town hall moment and tweeted, “It was about slavery.”
Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison tweeted that Haley’s answer was “not stunning if you were a Black resident in [South Carolina] when she was Governor.”
“Same person who said the confederate flag was about tradition & heritage and as a minority woman she was the right person to defend keeping it on state house grounds. Some may have forgotten but I haven’t. Time to take off the rose colored Nikki Haley glasses folks,” he added.
“Sorry, [Haley]. The Civil War was about slavery. Period,” Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who is running for the Democratic nomination for president, tweeted.
Christina Pushaw, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ rapid response coordinator, mocked Haley’s convoluted answer, describing it as “word-salad regarding the Civil War.”
The person who asked the question responded that it was “astonishing” to hear Nikki Haley’s answer “without mentioning the word slavery.” Kaitlan Collins/X
Pushaw also accused “conservative media personalities” of ignoring her response in an effort “not to make her look stupid with her own words.”
DeSantis press secretary Bryan Griffith characterized the moment as “a giant mess of her own making.”
The Haley campaign did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.
A RealClearPolitics average of polls pegs Haley in second place in New Hampshire, trailing former President Donald Trump by 21.5 points.
The Granite State primary will be held on Jan. 23.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
84 visitors
Its hard to see this as anything other than open pandering to the white, conservative, southern , base of the Republican Party.
Maybe she is trying to not alienate the party of slavery. Why do democrats expect republicans to make excuses for their actions?
What the hell are you talking about?
Democrats are the party of Slavery, this is historical fact! She isn't pandering to white republicans in the south, only an idiot believes this, she is trying not to alienate the racist democrats who rightfully think Biden is a failure.
Democrats beat the slavery drum incessantly trying to deflect from their past, Get this straight the party of racism, Slavery is your issue to explain. And why do you still think people of color are inferior?
I have been at NT since 2011, and your comment is one of the most absurd I have ever seen here.
that is because you are a democrat trying to project your bias on others.
Nope, just to easy.
If she is lucky enough to beat Trump and make it to the general, this will seriously haunt her campaign at that point.
I doubt it. People will forget
If she is the nominee, the Democrats will use this against her. I think it could change a few votes.
[✘]
“…the retards…”
…and this sort of discourse gets voted up? Pathetic.
[✘]
that "r" word is probably going to get challenged and it should get it too!
It's a disgusting word and has no value in today's society except to be mean
‘…and run away again?”
The day I feel compelled to ‘run away’ from any supercilious challenge [deleted] is the day I will have given up the ghost.
Agree, unfortunately you see it used here by folks across the political spectrum.
I'm good with mean, i no longer have respect for most of the left. so I treat them exactly as they treat the others who disagree with them.
I am sure they are 100% happy with that.
[Deleted]
hypocrisy?
Well, fascism is a right wing political ideology.
Not after the way the lefts embraced it< but i expect the morons to minly keep repeating it the same ignorant way thet bleat all the racist democrats became republicans......while telling us we have to lower the bar so African Americans can compete.
The fascist part was simply a cue to whom I was speaking of.
Of course leftists believe anyone left of them is a fascist but that was not the intention of the post.
The use of the word retard was.
Okay, you went there. I want you to fully understand how conflicted I felt when faced with a choice to lower the bar to interpret what your POORLY WRITTEN AND UNEDITED comment about African Americans is attempting to get across. Clean it up, next time, George!
I almost care what you think about my post, sorry that’s a lie, I don’t give a fuck about the vapid predictable anti everything right of Che’ bullshit you post incessantly. There is no place on earth your opinion will ever matter to me.
Exactly
Based on the many posts using it I am not sure many on the left knows what it means and therefore can not call it out.
And you wrote that to indicate somehow, way, or fashion that your comment is not poorly written and unedited? Please. Take stock of this: I don't need validation for what I do from you either in that case or anyone else to be here - may be the administrator and staff. . .but never a member.
Whose votes would change?
Democrats?
Republicans?
Most blithering idiots don't have minds.
So there's nothing to change!
That is taking wishful thinking to a whole new level. Where do you think an answer on the civil war fits into the top 100 reasons to vote for someone for president?
There's no way she (or anyone else) can beat trump for the nomination. (I'm wondering why any of the other Republican candidates for the nomination are even wasting their time trying to defeat him).
Probably on the slim hope that he will not be able to run.
There is a long history of white southern denial that slavery caused the Civil War, it is collectively known as the "Lost Cause myth". It is astonishing to think that Haley doesnt know that, but I suspect she does and just wanted to pander to her home base in South Carolina, the birthplace of the confederacy.
So they weren't fighting for people to secure basics rights and freedom of the slaves?
Democrats/leftists are complete and utter losers. With the word salads Kamala and Brandon toss every damn day this is the best you (plural) can come up with?
The kindest thing you could say about her answer is that it was a word salad.
It's highly likely Haley, steeped in the politics of the South (and South Carolina is 'ground-zero' for southern-styled politics), is keen to not fall into the 'trap' of talking about slavery when MAGAs are desperately trying to persuade the electorate to FOREGO their individual IDENTITIES as people of color. The point being that if we all put blinders on and forget about race/color then we can all fight over being liberal or (as they would prefer) Conservative.
It matches "perfectly" between "the lost cause" versus "slavery" debate as an example of alternative reality at work. In the first case, the proponents of the "Lost cause" argue taking their (human) property from them was an injustice worthy of dying; in the second case, the slaves and the federal government argued that it is impossible to maintain humans as property.
Are you speaking about individual identities today or in the early 19th century?
Lincoln didn't argue that.
Well. as one prominent Northern politician of the time said:
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.
MAGA signifies today.
I am not sure how Lincoln is important to my discussion, but I admit now I am getting lost in all the minutia of this protracted thread or comment section. You may need to refresh my memory on how it fits into the larger discussion as I am not mentally willing to reread 'everything' just to respond.
Sure. The freedom to enslave other people; buy and sell other people; and the government’s role in protecting that institution.
Yes democrats wanted to continue that practice, and were willing to destroy the country to do so, You see only a democrat thinks like you do, that they should have a right to enslave people. The republicans didn't believe in protecting that institution, that is why Haley gave that answer, she didn't feel the need to qualify freedoms by race, that is a democrat ideology.
Lincoln would have failed that town hall test. His answer would have been along the lines of:
The attack on Fort Sumter was an aggressive act of violence; it forces us to choose between disunion and war. The assault upon, and reduction of, Fort Sumter was, in no sense, a matter of self-defence on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the Fort could, by no possibility, commit aggression upon them. …In this act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the country, the distinct issue: Immediate dissolution, or blood.
I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.… Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it – break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Before the emancipation proclamation, over two years after the Union marched South, Lincoln never made any public comments linking the war to slaver, at least none that I could find. What's clear is that the south's secession was over slavery with some additional side issues.
As a matter of fact, yes he would have........and actually did say those words...............in his first inaugural address to the 37th Congress in 1861.
Two weeks before the first Battle of Bull Run, on 4 July, Lincoln address a special session of Congress. His purpose was to get validation of the measures he had already taken in preparation of war and build more support for those he would take. Like in his inaugural address, he didn't link the war to slavery, but to protecting the Union.
Maybe he was just pandering to his Republican base.
What a steaming pile of bullshit. I’d have to smoke the biggest bowl ever to say something so stupid.
You make the mistake of assuming I give a shit about parties. You also make the mistake of presuming that it’s even relevant to the conversation. It’s not.
Exactly how do you imagine I think? What the actual fuck do you think you’re talking about?
I didn’t say anything about race, actually. I talked about slavery. The argument over the “freedom” to enslave people is why we had a war.
He really doesn't know you, does he?
Who cares? It’s been over 160 years since Lincoln ran for president. It’s 2023 and a lot has changed since 1860. Nikki Haley knows better - or she should.
Like what, for example? Name one actual, real issue that would have led to war if the slavery issue did not exist.
No, obviously. A lot of people just project their own biases in the comments.
According to our National Park Service:
https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/causes.htm#:~:text=For%20more%20than%2080%20years,of%20slavery%20within%20American%20society.
People that enjoy history.
Yes.
I doubt that she could know better than Lincoln knew for his rationale for going to war.
Geez. What racist denier wrote that nonsense?
Yeah, it was the great “oatmeal vs. grits” debate. “American life” indeed!
Some federal workers. Surprisingly, the administration hasn’t removed it.
Just so there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind, Lincoln was opposed to slavery . He spoke of preserving the Union, of course, but his feelings about slavery are not ambiguous.
Any time you want to point to another reason for the war, you can’t give half of a reason.
If your reason is “states rights,” the obvious question is “a state’s right to do what?” The answer is: “to permit and protect slavery.”
If your reason is “to preserve the Union,” the obvious question is, “why was the union in jeopardy?” The answer is “because southern states feared they would lose the right to permit and protect slavery.”
[✘]
Like what? If there were no slavery, name some issues that were inexorably leading to war.
See 11
Yes, he was personally opposed to slavery but he would have tolerated it to hold the Union together.
For Lincoln, it was because the South succeeded, he made that clear in his first Inaugural Address and his special address to Congress on 4 July, 1861. Preserving the Union was his key mission and would have compromised on slavery if the South would have compromised on returning to the Union.
Again, I haven’t said that the slavery issue wasn’t the primary one for the South. With the election of Lincoln and the new Republican Party, the South felt that they had lost all national political influence and eventually, their political, economic and social life would change.
I haven’t tried to defend slavery at all, just trying to understand the history and the context of that time.
I think you would be hard pressed to find someone that doesn't,
You might notice that no specific issues are actually defined - other than slavery.
The South started the war and directly mentioned slavery as the cause in multiple founding documents. Dancing around the truth while responding to an ernest comment, especially without using the block quote feature, is less than you are capable of.
I’ve danced around nothing. I’ve always acknowledged that slavery was the principal reason for Southern succession.
How did I confuse you?
You didn't confuse me. You answered part of the question while not acknowledging fully the root cause of the conflict.
Yes, the southern states seceded from the Union, and yes, Lincoln said he was obligated to maintain the the Union, but the overriding reason for the whole kerfuffle was to the question: Slavery (Yes/No)?
You presented the arguments of Lincoln as if there was no tacit understanding of why the slave holding states seceded. (Intellectual integrity should have lead to block quotes or at least an indication that those words were said by Lincoln in his first inaugural address, however paraphrased they be)
So you danced.
You see only a democrat thinks like you do
All Democrats? Do you actually believe that all Democrats (and, for that matter. all Republicans) think exactly alike?
You see only a democrat thinks like you do
All Democrats? Do you actually believe that all Democrats (and, for that matter. all Republicans) think exactly alike?
If that were the case-- we wouldn't need to have primaries!
I just saw the video clip of this, and it is far worse than it looks on paper.
I just heard an apt quote about it. “Not mentioning slavery when talking about causes of the civil war is like not mentioning the sun when talking about sunburns.”
A decent analogy.
Given it is common, obvious knowledge that the sun is the cause of sunburn, some people (who are focused on health) would be talking about how to treat a sunburn and how to avoid a sunburn in the first place. They might not actually use the word 'sun' because that is obvious and instead speak of ultraviolet radiation (the portion of solar radiation that causes sunburn) and its damaging effect on skin cells.
In another analogy: It is cosmetic. Like putting lipstick on a pig. If you focus on its lips alone you won't be distracted by the pig being big and prominent behind its 'paint.'
I think that phrase is a common colloquialism not an analogy.
A cow has both bigger lips and bigger behind the lips.
Well. at least its not a common Onomatopoeia-- or worse yet-- a dangling Participle! Or even.... a split infinitive!!!
Such a simple question doesn't require a Ph.D. to answer. Anyone in the US knows that slavery was one of the causes of the Civil War, except Nikki.
Do you serious believe she doesn't know that? (Or were you trying to make a joke...?)
Personally, I would say this ridiculous answer makes her unfit to be president of the United States, but in the end she would still be much better than Trump.
Unfit?? You pull out the 'unfit' label for this? The same label that you (appropriately) use for Trump you now apply to Haley because of this???
No, JR, this does not make Haley unfit to hold the office of the presidency. One would have to read some extraordinary implications into this single event to come to the level of 'unfit'.
We definitely agree on that TiG.
Nikki Haley is shown with the wheels turning in her head - "how do I answer this without offending the white grievance crowd that is the base of my party".
This sort of stunning lack of honesty in answering a simple question that concerns the American "original sin" , slavery and race relations, shows she is not ready to be a president for everyone.
The only people who do not understand that slavery was THE cause of the civil war are those who want to deny the truth. There is an overwhelming historical consensus as to what caused the civil war. Abraham Lincoln was elected president and the slave states took that as a sign that slaverys days were numbered within the union.
I think Haley knew that the Civil war was fought over the right to own slaves (the economic foundation of the South at that time).
Like I said, candidates have to answer a lot of questions in real time. They try to do so while avoiding landmines and to stay on message. The electorate and the media force this. Here Haley likely was trying to do that and instead stepped on a landmine.
Give her a break and don't read all sorts of negatives into her choice to not use the word 'slavery' and to speak too abstractly.
And THAT is it right there. Without the slaves, the south's economy would turn to shit. And they weren't going to stand for it. The north had a manufacturing economy basis for the most part but the south depended on their crops and the slaves to work the farms and fields.
States rights and the economy......................
There were no white people in the south to "work the fields"? Oh yeah, they would have had to be paid.
She gives a relatively lengthy answer, and thus we can know that she intentionally avoided using the word slavery.
So what? If she decided that using the word 'slavery' was a political landmine, she would have avoided using it. She miscalculated. Big deal.
It does not surprise me that a candidate would want to avoid speaking of intensely emotional issues dealing with racism and brutality.
Um...John...Biden has stuck his foot in his mouth often
Which the North relied upon for their manufacturing. The textile mills were in the North. Now why did they ship cotton to New England to be milled instead of building the mills in the South?
Evidently no ingenuity. At least not enough to realize that they could do it in the south and save the shipping money up and then paying for it with finished textiles.
That's sad. There had to be some mechanical geniuses in the South. Eli Whitney was one. He came up with the cotton gin.
Also, the South did a lot of business with England. They shipped cotton there, too, for milling
I don't know why he didn't take it a step further than just removing the seeds. And there were other inventions later to spin and weave it. Guess they figured the north had the means and the south was making money hand over fist and really didn't need to expand. Who knows?
Friend TiG, I see your point clearly and I know your interest in Haley from prior comments about her candidacy. I thank you for the assessment that she stepped on a "landmine" in her answer. Here's why she did so: Former Governor Haley of South Carolina hails from a former slave state. Surely, being UNPREPARED and caught off-guard by the question is telling. Surely she has thought this one question or any of a number of variations on its theme through, yes?!
Why is she found not explicitly clear on the question?! Because she decided it better to be political/politick. And, that is why the question 'exploded' under the light-touch of her answer.
That questioner wanted to know if she could forget about partisan talking points if just for this occasion, and she could not.
It showed a lack of sincerity in a woman who wants to come across as authentic and more sensitive to all people. But, even so, politics still rules her in a big way.
That is the harm done by the question. Haley's answer EXPOSED her slick 'undercoating' as a GOP politician "foremost."
When was the last time you saw a sincere politician? That's why they're politicians. Sincerity and politics are polar opposites.
She made a misstep. I don't think it's that troubling in the vast field of troubles that face us. If she gets the GOP nomination I will probably vote for her
I accept that you will support Haley. I can not. Because I see her as willing to ignore her identity as a person of color and as a woman to ascend in the republican party. That's unacceptable to me. Why? Because she is a woman and a person of color. Thus, our society and our national cultural to this day has complex opposition issues with freedom, liberty, and pursuits of happiness for both entities.
That said, I "heart" me some, TG! (And that is my best answer!)
And that's why we are cyber friends. We can disagree but still respect and like each other
Ultimately, I think it is impossible to get elected without playing the political game. That slick 'undercoating' is necessary.
I do not approve of these games, but I do understand the necessity.
You got that right, it’s the reality of the day.
I can discern your heart is in your comments and have done so for several years now!
I agree. And, of course, you are correct about the 'game' in and of itself. I am envisioning the moment of the woman speaking with candidate John McCain for president about Barack Obama, a candidate for president that year too, being someone she could not trust because of disinformation she had been told about him being a 'militant-minded' Muslim.
And in that moment, John McCain, with years of experience as a republican politician, knew when he answered her, it would be weighted on the GOP scale and yet he steeled himself and set her straight: "No ma-am, Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen and a good family man.' (Paraphrased.) The statement went 'viral' and the defense of the truth likely assisted in his loss to the same - Barack Obama.
Truth can demand a sacrifice if need be, at times.
Politicians can get "landmined' when they try to be too cute by half!
It is a Saturnalia miracle. Or maybe just a totally absurd comment.
Well see what Lincoln himself said (see comment # 3.1.5 )
Would you vote for her if she runs against Biden?
Yes that is true,, Southerners had a very healthy overseas trade with other European nations also going through the pre war years industrial revolution, and it became a bone of contention between industrialist in the north and growers in the south.
Industrialists tried to implement price fixing for the cost of the growers raw material,overseas markets started paying higher prices for it basically blowing what the northern indies would pay out of the water.
Northern industrialists started financing politicians to raise export as well as import tariffs, so much so that even IF the growers sold to overseas interests they would actually lose money paying the import/export fees.
After the growers were left no choice but to sell to northern industries, that's when the indies did the "Big dirty" according to a very distant relative, the dropped the price of what they would pay, remember, back the the seller paid the shipping , not the buyer.
Those are known as the "Intolerable Tariffs" of the late 1850s.
Imagine being a small land farmer not owning slaves, competing with multi acre plantations that did own them , under those conditions.
Think that condition would be enough to be a little hot at both the government and northeners?
And she thought the questioner was a Dem plant.............
And she must be presidential material. She screwed up like Kamalatoe and left out a word " When asked him". Sign her up!!!
I would vote this up except for the confused and spurious second part.
The first part, which you evidently approve of, is her spinning her mistake. What caused the Civil War is in no way a difficult or complicated question that requires nuance.
The South Carolina primary is coming up and she wants to avoid being embarrassed by Trump in her home state. South Carolina was considered to be the most pro secession state and was the first to secede.
Or maybe she is explaining her mistake. Do you not want to allow her the option to address the controversy? Is she not allowed to give a reasonable explanation for why she answered as she did?
Again, she is running against Trump and even you are ripping her to shreds over her failure to give an accurate and politically correct answer to a question.
Does it not bother you that Trump gets away with outrageous claims and his likely main opposition is ripped to shreds over an answer that was too vague? How is someone like Haley supposed to upset Trump if she is held to such tight standards and Trump can gain popularity by being a vindictive, racist prick?
The right answer, that the looming disposition of slavery caused the civil war, is not a "politically correct" answer, it is the simple historical truth.
The Southern states valued slavery more than they valued being part of the United States. Lincoln valued the Union and felt it was his sacred duty to preserve it. He didn't go to war to end slavery, he went to war to end succession.
I like her explanation. I voted you up despite the spurious second part
Her explanation was pure bullshit. Even on her own terms her "word salad" in the original answer was not a good explanation for the civil war.
See 3.2.3 through 3.2.5 for your answer.......................
Sure. Lincoln was not the point of the question. Succession was not the cause of the war.
The southern states did not want to give up their CONSTITUTIONALLY provided freedom to own other people as property (the 3/5 "humanity" clause for slave property in the document). That led those states to succeed from the union. . .thus, calling for a presidential action to keep the union together.
Go back and reread Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address and his 4 July 1861 Address to Congress if you want to understand Lincoln rationale for going to war.
I know Lincolns rationale. Lincoln did not secede, the southern slave states did.
Yes, the South’s succession brought Lincoln to war, not slavery.
Do you think that Lincoln was lying, pandering to his base?
I understand Lincoln's rationale for going to war and as two things can be true at the same time, the southern states caused the war by their succeeding from the union and that succession was caused by wanting to keep slave/ry.
If you really don't understand my answer then I can't help you because it would require me to drill down on this with a question or several. . .and I will no longer, possibly ever, according to a preestablished agreement between me and certain commenters ask questions of you.
I understand your answer and it agrees with what I’ve previously stated here. The South largely succeeded over slavery and the North went to war over succession.
Okay. Then you have my answer and you have have yours. Let the facts bear themselves out. BTW, I seem to remember you were seeking a "root cause" well succession can't be the cause because it is an effect of something.
That was a while back.
According to Pres Lincoln, succession was the root cause.
secession
Believe whaever the heck you wish. We're done here.
Thanks.
Is anybody you don’t like “unfit?” You know, when everyone is unfit, the word ceases to lose any significant meaning.
I would say this ridiculous answer makes her unfit to be president of the United States, but in the end she would still be much better than Trump.
I don't know-- I haven't read anything either way about anything Trump said about causes of the War between the States? (In any event, he would probably say the cause had something to do with Hunter Biden-- or worse yet-- Hillary's laptop!
(Or Ben Ghazi-- remember him?)
Trump continues to make utterly outrageous statements and grows in popularity while Haley gets ripped to shreds for not using the word 'slavery' in her Civil war answer.
Candidates make mistakes. They will miss the points of questions while trying to find ways to make their campaign points and navigate around landmines. She navigated poorly this time (in real time). Reading anything more than a brain fart is unfair.
Ridiculous. The video shows her looking a little surprised by the question, but you can also see the wheels spinning in her head "how do I get out of this?". Her answer is not a brain fart, it is a calculated answer within the Republican Party mindset in 2023.
You cut her no slack at all. Join the crowd of those who, with this kind of double standard, will allow Trump to win the GOP nomination.
LOL Tig. This incident will not cost her a nomination she had virtually no chance of winning in any case. Republican voters dont listen to people like me.
Not the point. The point is that this incident illustrates an absurd double standard in how GOP candidates are evaluated.
Trump can be a flaming asshole on the campaign trail while Haley gets ripped for answering a question poorly.
No they don't.
Its obviously proof that she is a total racist!
In case it wasn't obvious, my previous comment (# 7. 2) was meant to be sarcasm)
Just when you think a candidate has potential, they go and commit a ridiculous unforced error.
I’m thinking the guy asking this question must have known what she would say. Because otherwise, why even bring it up?
If you are ever asked this question, if the first word out of your mouth isn’t “slavery,” you’re getting it wrong.
You make some excellent points!
In all fairness, they should ask all the Republican candidates what they thought the War Between the States was really about.
Heck-- even ask some Democrats so we would have a basis for comparison.
I actually don’t expect anyone running for president to be some kind of historical scholar. There are many questions a candidate could be asked that might stump them, and I would forgive their ignorance - or even their unpopular opinion. But the Civil War and slavery are not obscure issues. The insistence by some that the war was rooted in some kind of benign disagreement in ordinary political or economic policy is bizarre to me.
My guess is that the topic of slavery (especially given her home state) was determined as poisonous to her campaign. Thus she attempted to answer the question in the abstract. Slavery was the foundation for the economy of the South. Not owning slaves would, per the South, uproot their economy. Thus economic factors were very much core to the Civil war ... in the abstract.
If my hypothesis is correct, then this clearly was a campaign miscalculation. Regardless, Haley's answer was poor.
But I do not expect politicians to be perfect. Politicians are constantly speaking and answering questions — especially presidential candidates. Screwing up a question in an attempt, no doubt, to navigate what her campaign likely considers treacherous waters does not surprise me.
This, to me, is a single data point. Given Haley has a chance (albeit extremely small) to upset Trump, I certainly am going to cut her slack. Especially since her opponent (Trump) can literally say anything on the campaign trail and suffer no consequences.
Trying to stand 'pat' in the center of politics against Trump of all people won't be a winning strategy for Haley. Trump is going to 'light her up' - politically like a Christmas tree. Just let him get turned around. . . .
I do not think she has a choice. If she bucks Trump she loses. There is only one chance and that is to get the GOP to view her as a decent second choice and for Trump to (somehow) drop out of the race.
To do this, she cannot alienate the Trump supporters and yet somehow still persuade the rational portion of the GOP. Quite a daunting task.
Why? You dont cut Biden slack about his age.
Nikki Haley is infinitely preferable to Trump, no doubt. I dont take pandering to racists all that lightly though. And besides, every presidential candidate, successful or not, has issues that they fumble that become public discussions.
The man who asked her the question a couple days ago told the reporter why he did it. Seems Haley has previously did the same song and dance about slavery and the Civil War when she was running for governor of South Carolina years ago, and he wanted to see if she would say the same thing on this bigger stage. Haley is educated and surely knows the truth about slavery being the cause of the war, but she chose to pander to a group of voters which I would call the white grievance crowd. The purpose of denying that slavery was the cause of the war is to belittle the claims of black people over the decades and throughout US history actually. The story of the Lost Cause myth is key to all this. In this myth the south was not a land of race based cruelty with beatings, permanent family separations, rapes, and oppression of the African people, but rather a land of nobility, honor, love of the land, and God and family, and "civilization". In this myth the war wasnt started to protect the institution of slavery, it was forced on the peaceful southern people by northerners who wouldnt leave them alone.
Presidential candidates should not be engaging in this sort of pandering.
Biden's age is an immutable and extremely negative fact.
Haley's comment was a mistake.
I cut Biden slack all the time for his mistakes. I never rail on him for his many screwups with the English language, his many fabrications, etc. My criticism of Biden is about an extremely important factor that relates to his ability to effectively perform the functions of PotUS.
I do not think it is possible nowadays for a candidate to win without pandering.
You may see this as a distinction without a difference, but her unplanned, rambling response reflected phrase she’s used in the past to placate those in SC that don’t want to accept the truth about the Civil War. She would never been elected as Governor had she not developed those instincts.
I think that pandering reflects a pre planned response. Obviously her response sounded like a word salad when she was surprised by the question.
She blew it unlike when McCain was asked about Obama being a Muslim during a town hall event.
It remains to be seen how much damage her self inflicted wound has caused and if she will have a prepared answer when it is brought up again.
There is a built-in problem: MAGAs are uncompromising. And MAGA 'talking heads" and "radio/podcasters heads" won't let her angle to the middle and get the Trump voters in her camp if/when she tries to tack to the center. MAGAs don't respect independent voters, like you, enough to moderate their policies.
The White House hopeful appeared caught off guard by the question and failed to mention the antebellum South’s “peculiar institution” in her response.
It does seem like an odd question to help you decide who to vote for to be the next president. As a matter of fact I would guess it is not in the top 100 reasons that are on peoples minds when deciding who to vote for.
The reasons for the civil war are more nuanced than just slavery although slavery was one of the main contributors. According to NPS.gov:
The Civil War grew out of longstanding tensions and disagreements about American life and politics. For more than 80 years, people in the Northern and Southern states had been debating the issues that ultimately led to war: economic policies and practices, cultural values, the extent and reach of the Federal government, and, most importantly, the role of slavery within American society.
Against the backdrop of these larger issues, individual soldiers had their own reasons for fighting. Their motivations often included a complex mix of personal, social, economic and political values that didn't necessarily match the aims expressed by their respective governments.
Her response was pretty good, and understandable to anyone with an open mind. “ Of course the Civil War was about slavery. We know that. That’s the easy part of it . What I was saying was what does it mean us today? What it means to us today is about freedom. That’s what that was all about. It was about individual freedom, economic freedom, individual rights. Our goal is to make sure we never go back to the stain of slavery but what’s the lesson in all of that?”
All that being said I have a feeling the people that think this is enough of an issue to not vote for her were most likely not going to vote for her anyway. I also believe anyone that would seriously consider voting for her would not be swayed away from her based on this. Most Americans will probably never hear of it at all.
Some folks like their history to be black and white, no nuance or complexity. Simply the good guys against the bad guys, a binary situation, either it’s yes or no. It makes it easier to pick sides.
Are you "both sides-ing" the slavery issue now?
No, always been a Yankee, why do you ask?
And to call people traitors which seems very important to some.
Pun intended?
No doubt.
That wasnt her response. That was her response the next day when she had to do damage control.
The Civil War was fought because the southern states feared Lincoln would move to end slavery. This is not mere opinion, it is a known consensus among the country's best historians. I could deluge this seed with material showing this but I'm not going to bother.
We get it, you think leaving out the word slavery makes her unfit to be president of the United States. While that may be one of your more absurd statements I will say you are welcome to it.
Thanks for not deluging the seed with posts supporting your opinion, I might feel obliged to post many other of the countries best historians that agree that slavery was one of the main reasons, but not only reason, of the civil war.
Well.... at least that's something we can all be grateful for!
It’s a bunch of vague nonsense.
Sure. A life of slavery and the politics related to it.
Like Slavery.
Like whether or not slavery was a good thing.
Like whether or not the federal government could limit slavery or compel states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
No. Really, just slavery.
You are welcome to your opinion.
I already know that. What I have not heard from anyone is a single specific reason for the nation to go to war that’s not slavery.
Disagreements about American life and politics. Does that not seem pretty vague to you? That could be an argument about steak or fish for dinner.
Same for economic policies. Oh were we going to war over taxes? The gold standard? Interest rates? Minimum wage? Student loans? No. It was slavery. That was the economic issue.
I suggest you google it. You will find many organizations and scholars views. Some say slavery was the only thing and some say it wasn't that simple. Then you can pick and choose which opinions you adopt. I have a feeling you already did that and came up to the conclusion it was all about slavery. Obviously not everyone agrees with that opinion.
Every state that seceded issued a document on the matter, usually called something like “Declaration of Causes” or “Declaration of Succession” - something like that. Most of them didn’t go into a lot of detail as to why they were leaving, but a few did, including South Carolina .
Additionally, SC declared:
More from SC:
Not much there about tariffs. In fact, I’ve been through the whole document, and they don’t even mention it. They went to war over slavery. Without a slavery issue, there would have been no war.
Also, the South as "king" because of its world-wide cotton "empire" and Natchez, Mississippi was "bankrolling" cotton to the world. It was a prosperous time for the southern region! And, (raw) capitalism demanded expansion to new venues to keep abounding (for the masters' benefit) and thus when the leaders in the South found out that expansion would not be possible they revolted. Oh the irony. The war ultimately took away the South's very success those states for a long time enjoyed/took for granted and their slaves to boot!
As I reference in 11.4.5, we don’t need to guess at this. The states told everyone why they were leaving the union. It was slavery.
Raw capitalism demanded expansion to new venues to keep abounding (for the masters' benefit) and thus when
the southern economy was anti- capitalism. As an antebellum southern slave advocate wrote in 1854:
the southern economy was neo feudalistic
Please explain what you mean.
And those were the only things said about the reasons for war? To say that is an oversimplification is an understatement.
There is a great socio-psychological component to the denial that slavery caused the Civil War.
It fits right alongside the idea that slavery wasnt really that bad, that slaves were taught trades, and that slaves needed to "improve" themselves before they could be freed (this was the position of Robert E Lee).
Over a period of a couple hundred years white supremacy became a key feature of American attitudes about their society. The "remnants" of that attitude are still in force among some of us walking around today.
“The "remnants" of that attitude are still in force among some of us walking around today.”
Isn’t that a pretty casual way of describing the most systemically racist country on the planet?
It's cute to see you claiming others have socio-psychological component to the denial of facts about slavery after the last few years, particularly the hysteria over florida adopting standards taught by the AP board and in national parks.
What country do you think that is?
Absolutely no one is stopping you from supporting an alternative viewpoint with evidence.
Not sure what you are getting after there, Sean.
Thank you very much.
I wonder if anyone here remembers what Lincoln said on the matter?
It seems many of the "only slavery" crowd may not be. Then again when it is pointed out there response is "only slavery"
All of the so called non slavery causes for the war were connected to the slavery issue. For example , "states rights". The states rights the south wanted was the right for the north to leave them alone on the issue of slavery.
Even thought Lincoln said he would not end slavery where it already existed. They started a war based totally on an issue that didn't exist.
Yea, sure.
The war was not started by Abraham Lincoln, it was started by secession. The south seceded over the norths objection to slavery.
Objection with no plan to abolish it according to the president. Yep, a great reason to go to war. You can believe it was the only reason if you wish, it is not a surprise at all.
[Deleted]
I’ve read several and I learned that early into his presidency, Lincoln:
He justified these steps as necessary to save the Union and preserve the Constitution. He saw the Constitution as a framework for sharing power and a strong Union as necessary to protect the liberty promised in the Declaration of Independence.
He understood the risk associated with the resort to arms; and his in first inaugural address, he tried to reassure the South that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed.
Lincoln believed that there were similar thoughts in much of the South and that if he were patient that the seceded states would return to the Union without war.
Try reading Tried by War by James McPherson.
Some of you people need to educate yourselves about the Civil War period, because you dont know what you are talking about. You can start with this
www.usatoday.com /story/news/politics/elections/2023/12/28/slavery-caused-us-civil-war/72047113007/
'The cause of the Civil War was slavery': Historian weighs in on Nikki Haley's answer
5-6 minutes
"What was the cause of the United States Civil War?"
A voter posed the question to Republican presidential primary candidate and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley at a town hall in Berlin, New Hampshire Wednesday evening.
"I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was gonna run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn't do," she answered before turning the question back around on the voter.
By the end of the encounter, the voter wondered aloud why Haley didn't mention slavery in her responses.
"What do you want me to say about slavery?" she responded.
The incident drew criticism from both Democrats and other Republican presidential candidates. Haley said in a Thursday interview she knows the Civil War was about slavery, calling it "the easy part." Haley also alleged the voter who posed the question was a 'plant' by Democrats .
USA TODAY posed the same question to Dr. Amy Murrell Taylor , a history professor at the University of Kentucky and a specialist in the 19th century history of the South. Here is what she had to say:
More: Nikki Haley alleged she was set up by Democratic 'plant' after being asked what caused the Civil War
What caused the civil war?
"It's very simple, and it really does boil down to one word," Taylor said. "The cause of the Civil War was slavery."
She said that when trying to understand "why" the North and South went to battle, slavery is the core issue. The issues of state and federal power that led to Southern states seceding answer "how" the Civil War started, Taylor said.
In the mid-19th century, there was growing opposition to allowing slavery in new western territories from Northern states, where manufacturing was booming at the time.
Shortly after anti-slavery candidate Abraham Lincoln won the presidential election in 1860, South Carolina seceded from the U.S. followed by 10 more states by June of the following year.
"South Carolina and other Southern states invoked their state's right to secede in order to protect slavery, but they would not have done that...without slavery being the core trigger issue.
Historical documents explicitly name 'slavery' as core issue
Taylor said that historical documentation and news coverage of political debates at the time show how central it was to the conflict.
"[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution," the South Carolina Declaration of Secession states , according to the National Constitution Center.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world…and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization," states an excerpt from the Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union also posted on the National Constitution Center.
Government, freedoms and 'what people could and couldn't do'
Instead of saying "slavery" explicitly, Haley said the cause of the Civil War was "basically how government was gonna run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn't do."
Taylor admits that "freedom" was relevant, but only in terms of the fight for freeing enslaved people.
As reported by the Associated Press , it wasn't the first time Haley glazed over slavery in the history of the South, and Taylor said Haley isn't alone in avoiding it.
"There are a lot of people out there who would have answered that question the same way and have done so for for generations," Taylor said. "So this is a really bigger problem than Nikki Haley."
She said many who fought for the South deliberately sought to downplay the role of slavery, starting almost immediately after the war ended. The United Daughters of the Confederacy published textbook guidelines to expunge the subject of slavery, she said.
"Former Confederates, they really, they may have lost the war but, as people say, they won the memory of it," Taylor said.
'What do you want me to say about slavery?'
Taylor said her students are always surprised to see the archives name slavery so prominently after growing up in a culture that obscures the history.
"This history is not that long ago if you really stop and think about it," Taylor said. "And so for some families, white Southern families, it's a very uncomfortable thing to think that their ancestors sought to protect and defend slavery."
Taylor said Haley's response, "What do you want me to say about slavery?" reflects a larger impulse to avoid the uncomfortable and leave the past in the past.
"But the problem is, the country never fully grappled with slavery and its aftermath and tried to move on without doing so," Taylor said. "That has meant that we continue to struggle with questions of racial equality and rights and justice today."
What did Lincoln say on the subject at his first Inaugural Address in 1861 or his address in Congress on 4 July 1861?
Another time (in 2010) Haley tried to explain the Civil War without mentioning slavery
Pathetic.
Lincoln felt like he needed to keep the border states behind the Union.
Yes and he needed the support from the Northern States not willing to die over slavery.
Were you confused by my question 12.1 ?
So she is consistent. Problem?
Nothing you say confuses me.
so is it that you lack the intelligence to answer? ot is it that you know the answer will be to expose the truth of Nikki Haley's answer?
Here is the answer you seek from the 1861 special address to Congress...........
Where do you see Abe talking slavery in there...............see the whole thing through links in here
.
Perhaps, then you purposefully avoided the question in 12.1
You don't think slavery is included in the traditions and beliefs she spoke of?
The sheer ignorance from the right on this topic grows tiresome.
If you want to know why Lincoln didnt emphasize slavery in his address to Congress pick up a fricking adult history book.
I'm wondering if everyone here actually believes you?
In the 1860 presidential election, Abraham Lincoln was not on the ballot in many Southern states. This was due to the fact that the Southern Democratic Party deliberately excluded his name from the ballot as a protest against his anti-slavery stance 1 .
Democrats never change. Going back to their playbook
When an expert feels the need to add all that into her dissertation I have to wonder if there is something on her agenda other than the accurate historical telling of what caused slavery.
The Supreme Court Case that Proves that the Antebellum South Wasn’t Really Concerned with States Rights | History News Network
Southern newspapers were vocal supporters of the Confederacy. It lasted for generations (tennessean.com)
A Southern Newspaper Concludes "We are all therefore slaves" · SHEC: Resources for Teachers (cuny.edu)
Yes, the South succeeded primarily over slavery and the North fought primarily over holding the Union together.
When faced with a question with no purpose other than to ambush her, she just has to give the simple, correct, one word answer of slavery and move on. A campaign stop isn't the place for nuanced or subtle discussion of the topic. The last person on earth who probably wanted an earnest discussion of the civil war was the questioner. Now she has to spend a day cleaning it up, which she can't afford.
But the spectacle of Biden supporters attacking her is funny on many levels. First, she in in public and answering questions, which Biden can't do. Second, the response was at least on topic, which Biden rarely manages. Third, even when he does manage to stay on topic, Biden lies and tries to make himself the story. Asked the same question, he would probably have lamented that he and Lincoln tried to save the country but his good friend Jeff Davis, who was a moderate unlike the ultras super duper Magas he's fighting today just wouldn't compromise. Fifth, Haley actually cleaned up her mess, rather than having her press secretary lie, claim it never happened, than turn around and double down on it being correct as all the while other members of her camp walk it back. She's held to the standard of a sane person, and Biden isn't.
In the few seconds between when she was asked the question and when she started to answer it she determined that an honest answer wouldnt do her any good in the Republican primaries, and she was probably right.
I am awaiting the day when some reporter asks Trump if he knows what the Civil War was and what decade it took place in. I would bet money he couldnt answer that second part.
If that were true, she'd be doubling down on her answer and not cleaning it up. If she said "slavery," no one would have ever heard of the exchange taking place.
An unfortunate reality.
Jesus Christ, how naive.
She now gets to have it both ways. She told the white grievance crowd, which is the base of the Republican Party in 2023, what they would like to hear, and then the next day faced the reality that to a broader audience she had fucked up and needed to do damage control. Her next day explanation was pro forma.
The best possible spin you could put on her original comment was that she was trying to say government overreach was the cause of the war.
What did the government "overreach" about ? Slavery.
You want to attack Kamala Harris because she has a gas stove , and then brush Haley's problem off? Pitiful.
Lol. Do you think the hundred people or whatever the attendance would care if she said slavery? You are incredibly out of touch if you think that answering "slavery" would cost her votes in New Hampshire of all places, or that she won votes by not explicitly saying it. It's the most non-issue of non-issues.
Her next day explanation was pro forma
But she made it. If the real world resembled your imaginary one, she would have doubled down on it.
No shit. That's why I said she should just say slavery and move on.
amala Harris because she has a gas stove
Well, yeah. Her admin is trying to ban them. You aren't loony enough to think a daughter of immigrants from India who changed the South Carolina flag because of its connection to the confederacy is pro-slavery, are you? Stoves are an actual issue that will have a real world effect on Americans.
“It's the most non-issue of non-issues. ”
Not to those that are constantly fixated on causing division by race.
Much different than the "white liberal racist crowd"
And there are many
It would have been easier all around had she stated both or have given a comprehensive answer in the time allotted her to. . . 'toy' around with her answer by asking the questioner-questions about her answer. The fault here is Nikki Haley. She needs to fix this as it will happen again-even if just to see if she gets it right the next time around or make news again when she flubs it.
I am awaiting the day when some reporter asks Biden if he knows what the Civil War was and what decade it took place in and have him answer by telling them what flavor ice cream he is going to have.
As you so often point out on other issues, you can still get them and it will not be illegal to own one, so it isn't really a ban, is it?
It, of course, depends on the rule issued. For instance, California banning the sale of gas stoves after 2030 is a ban. Just like the state banning the sale of a book would constitute a book ban. A school deciding to install an electric stove is no more of "gas oven ban" than a school deciding not to use a book in its curriculum is a "book ban."
Perhaps.
Actually I expect that if it brought up, he would say that if the Civil War happened when he was president he would have ended it in two days!
This is getting too stupid to be believed. Something is seriously wrong with parts of our nation. It's sick, sick, sick in its national politics and more political combat is not going to make it better. We're going to lose our place in this world sooner than later if we don't repair our national SPIRIT and end the separation that is leading us to ruin by spending too much on political bullshit.
That reads like Haley is your version of "greatest thing since sliced bread" - with such praise she standalone with her 'troubles.' She does not need Biden as a foil. BTW, it is telling that you did not reach over to grab the nearest and high-flying republican candidate to wipe with: Donald Trump. He is of, through, and by the GOP.
Half the country? Per the 1860 Census, the Union states was approximately 19.2 million, the Confederate States approximately 8.7 million and the border states which didn’t succeed about 3.5 million.
How about the cause from the white supremacists horses mouth
In March 1861,Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederates States of America, was quoted in the Savannah Republican:
I'm good with acknowledging that cause, why do you seemingly deny Lincoln's?
I really dont know what your point is, you seem to think that Lincolns not emphasizing slavery as the cause of the war means something important.
The war was caused by secession. Secession was caused by the souths desire to protect slavery. Those are the facts.
Exactly. The Southern states felt that the North was breaking its "contract" with them by ignoring the FREEDOM the constitution gave them to hold slaves as property and as 3/5 'count' for legislative reasons in national government. Thus, giving up their slaves was a costly affair and "property" loss.
Not emphasizing? He didn’t ever mention it publicly as he took the North to war. What he did site as his rationale was secession could not be allowed.
I haven’t said that it wasn’t. You haven’t explained why the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t issued until the nation was approaching its third year of civil war. Try dealing with all the facts.
You dont know?
You seem to think that unless "slavery" was cited as the cause of the war by Abraham Lincoln, then it wasnt the cause of the war. Which is WRONG.
The war was caused by secession, not what Lincoln said or didnt say about slavery. The south seceded BECAUSE they thought the north, led by Lincoln, was going to attempt to outlaw slavery. Right or wrong, that was their reasoning. When Lincoln said he was going to resupply US forts in the south, the Confederates fired on Ft. Sumter, starting the war. Lincoln didnt start the war, secession did.
FINALLY!!
I dont know where youve been.
Secession was caused by "slavery". The south feared the new Lincoln administration would try to end slavery, so they decided to get out. Try reading some of the secession documents.
"slavery was the cause of secession and secession was the cause of the war. get it ?
Yes.
I know, and I think you know too but won’t answer but it’s counter to your previous ones.
Yes, as I have consistently said here.
Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said he wouldn’t. He focused it on reassuring the Southern states that the president would not try to strip them of their slaves and that he would try to find a way to help them secure slavery.
The Mississippi Declaration of Secession is little more than an airing of grievances directly related to slavery
from the book The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader The “Great Truth” about the “Lost Cause” Edited by James W. Loewen and Edward H. Sebesta
====================================================================================
Here is how to treat every alleged reporter who is pushing their bullshit agenda.
Canadian Candidate Pierre Poilievre Calmly Reduces Lefty Journo to Stuttering Idiocy – PJ Media
It was a cowardly chicken shit answer which illustrates Haley's lack of a backbone and weaknesses as both a leader and a candidate...
[NO VALUE]
266 comments in a day and a half is an overload for this seed. Closing it for now.