Nikki Haley-What was the cause of the Civil War

[*pally*]

Nope, Nikki, it is actually a very easy question...one that you bombed. If you cannot categorically state that slavery was the ultimate cause of the Civil War, you have no business being President.

Quote:Voter: "What was the cause of the United States Civil War?"

Nikki Haley: "Don't come with an easy question, right? 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. What do you think the cause of the Civil War was?"

Voter: "I'm not running for president."

Haley: "I mean, I think it always comes down to the role of government. 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."

Voter: "In the year 2023, it's astonishing to me that you can answer that question without mentioning the word 'slavery.'"

Haley: "What do you want me to say about slavery? Next question."
11:20 PM · Dec 27, 2023
·
1.2M
Views

Asked what caused the Civil War, Nikki Haley refuses to mention slavery: “What do you want me to say about slavery? Next question.” pic.twitter.com/cEMW3Cn9ku

— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) December 28, 2023

[masonbengals fan]

https://time.com/6255503/nikki-haley-2024-confederate-flag/

So the governor who took down the Confederate flag is a racist ? 

Is that what you are implying ?

Apparently I must have missed your commentary on Biden's "You ain't black " remarks.

Same old playbook. Year after year after year.

[hollodero]

(12-28-2023, 11:03 AM)pally Wrote: Nope, Nikki, it is actually a very easy question...one that you bombed.  If you cannot categorically state that slavery was the ultimate cause of the Civil War, you have no business being President.

Was it really about that alone though? I get that this is the official teaching and it might seem like the right answer to give, but in the end... if I were asked to give a honest assessment, I'd have to argue there were way more factors in play and slavery was not the one and only cause. Maybe not even the most important one. This whole picture of the morally cleansed, good Union just fighting for the freedom of slaves against the evil South always was a tad too romantic for me to be entirely accurate.

I get it is considered a sacrilege to even contemplate additional reasons, but I am an uneducated foreigner and hence am allowed to be that kind of ignorant.

Btw. here's something that Lincoln said. "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." Hm.

[*Nately120*]

Nimroda made her stance clear on where stands on the war of Yankee aggression when she had the Confederate flag taken down. Regardless of what people were fighting over, she sided with the opposite side shes trying to court now.

[*pally*]

(12-28-2023, 11:28 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: https://time.com/6255503/nikki-haley-2024-confederate-flag/

So the governor who took down the Confederate flag is a racist ? 

Is that what you are implying ?

Apparently I must have missed your commentary on Biden's "You ain't black " remarks.

Same old playbook. Year after year after year.

that's your interpretation, not mine.  Personally, I think it displayed her weakness as a politician.  Not wanting to take a strong stand on anything is a pattern with her.  She gave a wishy-washy answer trying to appease people who like to believe it was fought over northern aggression.  It is 2023, it should not have been difficult to state the cause of the Civil War, her constituency be damned...some of them need to hear the correct answer too.

She is trying desperately to spin her answer this morning by claiming she was talking about today but seriously it was a straightforward question that required a one word answer

[GMDino]

(12-28-2023, 11:28 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: https://time.com/6255503/nikki-haley-2024-confederate-flag/

So the governor who took down the Confederate flag is a racist ? 

Is that what you are implying ?

Apparently I must have missed your commentary on Biden's "You ain't black " remarks.

Same old playbook. Year after year after year.

Ah yes.  She used a tragedy to finally make a political statement by getting a group to agree to remove the flag.  What strength!

Should have been easy to answer the question then.

But, as Pally noted, she needs the good-ole-boy vote so she can't just answer it...she had to try and please both sides.  "Good people on both sides", don'tcha know?

[*pally*]

(12-28-2023, 11:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: Was it really about that alone though? I get that this is the official teaching and it might seem like the right answer to give, but in the end... if I were asked to give a honest assessment, I'd have to argue there were way more factors in play and slavery was not the one and only cause. Maybe not even the most important one. This whole picture of the morally cleansed, good Union just fighting for the freedom of slaves against the evil South always was a tad too romantic for me to be entirely accurate.

I get it is considered a sacrilege to even contemplate additional reasons, but I am an uneducated foreigner and hence am allowed to be that kind of ignorant.

Btw. here's something that Lincoln said. "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." Hm.

We can tap dance around all the other causes that are discussed but they all center around slavery.

Every state in the Confederacy mentioned slavery in their "new" state constitutions.  The Articles of Succession discussed how slavery was paramount to their economy.  

Economy-free labor
State's Rights-the right to keep slaves
Lincoln's election- he wanted to keep the country together but didn't want the expansion of slavery.  His party, though, was for abolition

[masonbengals fan]

I'm more concerned with 2024 and beyond than an obvious gotcha question about events from 1861.

[hollodero]

(12-28-2023, 12:05 PM)pally Wrote: We can tap dance around all the other causes that are discussed but they all center around slavery.

Every state in the Confederacy mentioned slavery in their "new" state constitutions.  The Articles of Succession discussed how slavery was paramount to their economy.  

Economy-free labor
State's Rights-the right to keep slaves
Lincoln's election- he wanted to keep the country together but didn't want the expansion of slavery.  His party, though, was for abolition

Oh just to clarify, of course slavery and all the issues around it was a quite important reason. I do not put that in question. It's just, when you say that question requires a one word answer, I can not really feel on board with that. Imho, that feels like oversimplifying the issue for moral conveniency. I'd argue a historian would not be quite satified with said one word answer.

[*Nately120*]

(12-28-2023, 12:16 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I'm more concerned with 2024 and beyond than an obvious gotcha question about events from 1861.

A lot of voters are obsessed with 1861, for some reason. 

[masonbengals fan]

(12-28-2023, 12:33 PM)Nately120 Wrote: A lot of voters are obsessed with 1861, for some reason. 

I agree. As soon as someone invents a time machine we can go back and fix things.

[*Nately120*]

(12-28-2023, 12:34 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I agree. As soon as someone invents a time machine we can go back and fix things.

If you elect me I'll reveal the time machine I invented within my first 2 weeks. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-28-2023, 12:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh just to clarify, of course slavery and all the issues around it was a quite important reason. I do not put that in question. It's just, when you say that question requires a one word answer, I can not really feel on board with that. Imho, that feels like oversimplifying the issue for moral conveniency. I'd argue a historian would not be quite satified with said one word answer.

You shouldn't feel odd asking this question, because the main cause has shifted over the years.  Oddly enough the "needs" of left leaning academia is, IMO, the cause.  For most of my life the war was about slavery, either ending it or fighting to keep it.  Then around my college years (mid early to mid 90's) it changed to states rights, i.e. a federation or a confederation.  The US is an institutionally flawed, and most importantly racist, nation and would never go to war to liberate nonwhites. Then around 2016 (I wonder why?) the issue of slavery became the laser focus of the Civil War, because absolutely everything in this country must be viewed through the lens of race.  So your confusion is founded in reality.

Truthfully, I think it was largely (80%) about slavery, with the states rights issue hinging on, but limited to, that issue.  The interesting thing about that though, is that around 600,000 Union soldiers (almost exclusively white men) died fighting the Civil War to end slavery.  Which kind of complicates the whole white people are evil and the US is irredeemably racist argument.

[Arturo Bandini]

What a nice world we live in where saying slavery was bad can hurt your voting base ...

[*Nately120*]

(12-28-2023, 05:18 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: What a nice world we live in where saying slavery was bad can hurt your voting base ...

I've been told that Democrats were the ones who wanted to keep slavery and the Confederacy, so I'm not sure why she doesn't just burn the Confederate flag and watch her support from Republicans skyrocket. 

[Belsnickel]

(12-28-2023, 12:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh just to clarify, of course slavery and all the issues around it was a quite important reason. I do not put that in question. It's just, when you say that question requires a one word answer, I can not really feel on board with that. Imho, that feels like oversimplifying the issue for moral conveniency. I'd argue a historian would not be quite satified with said one word answer.

I disagree. Historians would be happy with "slavery" being the one word answer for the majority of the population. Sure, you'd probably want to see 5-15% saying something more detailed, but if you got into it they would just criticize your analysis. The main thing, though, is that any reputable historian would tell you that if you gave an answer to the question asked in the OP that did not mention slavery, then you were just wrong. Your answer doesn't have to be one word, but that one word should be in there and not in a way to dismiss it as a cause.

[Belsnickel]

(12-28-2023, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You shouldn't feel odd asking this question, because the main cause has shifted over the years.  Oddly enough the "needs" of left leaning academia is, IMO, the cause.  For most of my life the war was about slavery, either ending it or fighting to keep it.  Then around my college years (mid early to mid 90's) it changed to states rights, i.e. a federation or a confederation.  The US is an institutionally flawed, and most importantly racist, nation and would never go to war to liberate nonwhites. Then around 2016 (I wonder why?) the issue of slavery became the laser focus of the Civil War, because absolutely everything in this country must be viewed through the lens of race.  So your confusion is founded in reality.

You definitely had a different exposure to the narrative around the Civil War than I have had. In my area it has always been a conversation of whether the "War of Northern Aggression" was about states' rights or slavery with the majority saying slavery (or at least the states' rights to allow slavery) and a minority answering much like Nikki Haley did. This has been the case for me ever since I was a kid to present day; not much has changed. I have a very interesting thing going here, though. My county did not want to secede from the union, voting for Bell, but also didn't want to be a part of West Virginia when they separated. Lincoln's father was born just down the road from me and his family cemetery has the graves of several slaves buried in it. There was also a large contingent of Brethren and Mennonites in my area, of which my family was a part, and they were both abolitionists and staunch pacifists. Some, though, were murdered for their ministerial work even though they did not take part in the war because they were accused of spying, like my cousin (six times removed).

(12-28-2023, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Truthfully, I think it was largely (80%) about slavery, with the states rights issue hinging on, but limited to, that issue.  The interesting thing about that though, is that around 600,000 Union soldiers (almost exclusively white men) died fighting the Civil War to end slavery.  Which kind of complicates the whole white people are evil and the US is irredeemably racist argument.

To be fair, while the war at the top level was fought over the issue of slavery, that is not what the soldiers doing the fighting cared about. Union soldiers were, to be quite frank, just as if not more prejudiced against black people than their southern opponents. Lincoln himself said he would have prevented war without freeing a single slave if he could have done so. The southern states seceded out of fear that they were going to lose their way of life and the northern states went to war to prevent them from seceding. This is the complicated reality of the conflict. The north did not go to war to end slavery, they went to war to keep the country together. The south did secede to preserve the institution of slavery, though.

[Millhouse]

The root cause of the Civil War was money and power of the Southern ruling elites. Their money and power centered around the ownership of slaves. So slavey is the root cause of it all.

Why Haley just didn't say slavery, no clue, it's an easy answer especially when running for office.

[CJD]

(12-28-2023, 11:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: Was it really about that alone though? I get that this is the official teaching and it might seem like the right answer to give, but in the end... if I were asked to give a honest assessment, I'd have to argue there were way more factors in play and slavery was not the one and only cause. Maybe not even the most important one. This whole picture of the morally cleansed, good Union just fighting for the freedom of slaves against the evil South always was a tad too romantic for me to be entirely accurate.

I get it is considered a sacrilege to even contemplate additional reasons, but I am an uneducated foreigner and hence am allowed to be that kind of ignorant.

Btw. here's something that Lincoln said. "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." Hm.

Prior to the Civil War, there were unwritten rules with the intention of keeping the number of slave and non-slave states equal. This was done primarily so that one side would not overrun the other side. They even created an unofficial line that divided the country into the slave and non slave halves, the Missouri Compromise. So named because Missouri, despite being north of the line, chose to be a slave state. From that point on, no state north of the 36th parallel was technically allowed to be a slave state.

Problems occurred with the introduction of California, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska and fights over whether they would be slave states or free states. This is where a lot of fighting occurred within these territories and the famous abolitionist John Brown made a name for himself (Bleeding Kansas). There were even physical fights in Congress (Sumner Caning).

The fear by the South was that, eventually, the North would gain more voting power and eliminate slavery entirely. 

John Brown attempted a slave uprising that failed, but it further convinced southerners that the North would inevitably ban slavery.

As time went on, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, California were all instituted as free states, which did give the free states a numbers advantage over the slave states, which only further increased the slave states' fears that slavery would be banned outright.

The Republican party was formed and they nominated Lincoln, who was, by that era's standards, vehemently opposed to slavery, even prior to the war. But he said consistently that he did not want to ban it for the reasons you mentioned. His foremost concern was maintaining the union. 

When Lincoln won the 1860 election, that is when the secessions began. The first was in December 1860, followed by 6 more states in January and February 1861, and then 4 more between in April and May 1861 (after the war had begun).

In his inauguration speech, Lincoln repeated his intention to not ban slavery, but the damage was already done by then.

In the official secession documents, several states (it may have been every state, I don't recall) specifically called out hostility towards slavery as a primary reason for secession.

In other words, they seceded as a means of pre-empting the eventual outlaw of slavery that had no occurred yet and that, as you said, Lincoln had already said he had no intention of doing.

You're correct that it was not a situation where the Do-gooder northerners were fighting for what was right and the evil southerners fought to keep their slaves.

I mean, the latter portion of that statement is correct, but not the do-gooder northerners part. At least not institutionally.

In reality, Lincoln freed the slaves as a tactical maneuver to weaken the South after the war had already begun. It was not out of the kindness of his heart or anything like that.

Now...would he have eventually declared all slaves free anyway? Perhaps. It's hard to say. I think he preferred it just die out naturally. But that's what the South was afraid of and why they began the Civil War initially (via the firing on Fort Sumter in April 1861, after 7 states had already seceded).

There's no two ways about it. The Civil War was fought because the South wanted to keep slaves and they feared the North would eventually move to free them. It's just not as clear cut as a lot of Northerners claim in regards to the eventual motives for the Emancipation Proclamation.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-28-2023, 12:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh just to clarify, of course slavery and all the issues around it was a quite important reason. I do not put that in question. It's just, when you say that question requires a one word answer, I can not really feel on board with that. Imho, that feels like oversimplifying the issue for moral conveniency. I'd argue a historian would not be quite satified with said one word answer.

You're right that it is more complicated than just a one word reason.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/01264_0.pdf
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."


The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't enacted until almost 2 years after the start of the war had passed when it became clear that it was going to take awhile and the Union needed more soldiers (hence why there were specific mentions of escaped slaves from the South being recognized as free to join the Army and Navy) with an estimated 10% of the Union Army being African Americans by the end of the war. 

It also was only affecting territories that had seceded against the Union. Slavery still continued in the Union states of Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Tennessee (almost 1/3rd of the total slave states both Union and Confederate at the time), and any part of the South that was under Union control. For example Missouri was a slave state in the Union and they didn't outlaw slavery until 2 years AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation with the 13th Amendment. Kentucky was almost 3 years after, and months after the Civil War had already ended.

- - - - - -

I say this as a person who had no slave owners in my family history and they fought extensively (though not quite exclusively, but overwhelming majority) for the Union, had a handful die fighting for the Union, and I am perfectly fine saying slavery is bad. Just to cut off any of those potential replies.

Slavery was obviously a part of the equation, but there was certainly more going on there and it wasn't the initial key focus as they would have chosen a whole US over a fractured warring US and no slavery, as evidenced by the fact that they allowed 5 slave states to continue operating as business as usual for years after the South formed the Confederacy.

Nothing is ever as simple as one word, let alone something that lasted 4 years and killed over half and less than one million people.