Haley says she assumed it was a ‘given’ that Civil War was about slavery

The Hill ^ | 01/03/2024 | TARA SUTER

[ChicagoConservative27]

GOP presidential primary candidate Nikki Haley said Wednesday she had assumed it was a “given” that the Civil War was about slavery when giving her controversial answer on the topic last week.

“What I should have said immediately was that the Civil War was about slavery, but I just assumed that that was a given, and I went on and said it was also about the role of government and about the rights of people economically, socially and otherwise,” Haley said in a Fox News interview Wednesday.

The former United Nations ambassador and South Carolina governor faced backlash for her answer to a voter’s question on what the Civil War was fought over, during a town hall even in New Hampshire.

[ChicagoConservative27]

Just go away will ya

[NorthMountain]

Nimrata isn’t really American ...

That pesky clause in the Constitution is there for a reason.

[Magnum44]

[Tell It Right]

Nikki and Vivek should run for king and queen of the Anchor Babies Parade.

[blackdog]

But it wasn’t over slavery, by Lincolns own admission.

[lepton]

GOP presidential primary candidate Nikki Haley said Wednesday she had assumed it was a “given” that the Civil War was about slavery when giving her controversial answer on the topic last week.

---

She has irritated me on quite a number of things she has said, but this is correct.

[HIDEK6]

The War Between the States was fought to stop yankees from enslaving The South.

[j.havenfarm]

Her comments are violative of the First Rule of Holes.

Trump and DeSantis both know the first misstep is accepting the basis or legitimacy of the question. Her response should have been “that’s a curious question. I’m not sure an inquiry that harkens back 163 years helps us understand and repair the disaster that is the Biden administration. Why are you asking me that?”

[Gaffer]

The worst thing she could do is to keep trying to ‘explain’ herself on something like this.

Any questions about ‘slavery’ are just a trap to try and legitimize minority and opponent attempts to equate discrimination claims of today with slavery. It is just not so. If anything, they ought to be thinking about the Democrat Voter Plantation of empty promises and lies.

Call me a racist if you want. I don’t care - I’m not running for any office.

[chajin]

It was a gibbon

[ThePatriotsFlag]

Agree, it wasn’t about slavery ... time for some folks to get out a history book. (remember those?)

[DiogenesLamp]

Haley says she assumed it was a ‘given’ that Civil War was about slavery

Well that's what we've all been taught.

Not true, but that's the propaganda we've all been fed for all of our lives.

[South Dakota]

Enslaving the south so they could steal the land for pennies on the dollar.

Like Obama bankrupting the coal mines so Soros can buy them

[MMusson]

First - Secession was over slavery and economic exploitation of the South. The South has 20% of the population but was paying 80% of the Federal Taxes.

Second - the Civil War began because the Union Army occupied and destroyed Ft. Moultrie in Charleston Harbor after President Lincoln already promised the State of South Carolina that the Forts would NOT be occupied while the giant Peace Conference was going on in Washington. After Ft. Moultrie was destroyed, Union troops occupied Ft. Sumter and began spiking the cannons and preparing to destroy the Fort (Against Lincoln’s assurances). And, finally the South Carolina Army fired on Sumter.

[cyclotic]

Well, let’s see. Historians and others have been disagreeing on the cause of the Civil War since what, 1966?

Of course a random Presidential candidate will have the definitive answer.

She would have been best off saying “Experts have disagreed on all of the causes of the Civil War for decades, we’re not going to answer this here. What we can say definitively is that Republicans ended slavery.

[Bull Snipe]

The Union Army did not destroy fort Moultrie. It was manned by an artillery company of the United States Army. Lincoln was not President, Buchannon was President. Anderson spiked the guns at Moultrie and moved his troops to Sumter. If Anderson’s men spiked the guns at Sumter, how did they manage to return fire once the Confederate batteries surrounding the fort opened fire?

[Bull Snipe]

1966?, naw 1866.

[HamiltonJay]

Acually they should run for Arse Clown Couple of the year.

Vivek is just a complete fraud from top to bottom on everything...

Nikki is a complete Fraud on pretending America is first for anything she will do.

This is the problem the UNIPARTY is owned by people who don’t give a damm about this country, and every single establishment politician is beholden to them.

[wiseprince]

This is still a story? Sheesh. Im happy this should be helping Trump in NH but really this is so silly. That’s what makes Trump so strong. Anyone want to bet if Trump got the exact question 30 seconds into his answer he’d be talking about how he got HBCUs approved and no one could have done it and how African American unemployment was the lowest it’s ever been. He controls the room. Birdbrain just gets lead around (based on how hard she’s beem back tracking since answering).

[Savage Beast]

Maybe it was to prevent the Southern States from leaving and taking with them the lands they had ceded to the Union when they joined it. Those lands would have included everything west of Pennsylvania and south of the Potomac River.

And if it was about slavery, why did the Emancipation Proclamation free the slaves only in the Confederacy and not the slaves in the Northern States in which slavery was still legal?