Posted on 01/03/2024 12:37:24 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Thier is no difference between lost causes and left. NONE.
Yes, slavery was how the powers on both sides sold the war to the chumps who had to fight it.
It was “about” slavery to a lot of people who undertood an abomination when confronted with one. States’ rights is a bit more abstract and rarefied.
“What I should have said immediately was that the Civil War was about slavery, but I just assumed that that was a given”
It took her a week to come up with that spin? Sorry ain’t buying it.
“Haley says she assumed it was a ‘given’ that Civil War was about slavery”
Not if you studied unbiased history it wasn’t.
It was not mainly about Slavery it was mainly about treason
Nonsense. Tractors weren't yet in use on plantations. The earliest prototypes were steam-driven and awkward, relying on coal or wood for fuel and not in much use anywhere.
An effective cotton harvesting machine was still 70 or 80 years in the future, and without that cotton would still have to be picked by hand.
And look up what a cotton gin was. The cotton gin made the cotton-slave economy possible. Before that, picking the seeds out by hand took forever and was uneconomical.
If Lincoln had been a Democrat, slavery never would have been touted as a reason the war started.
As it is, Lincoln didn't authorize the use of free black men in Union regiments that were raised in the North until the middle of 1863. If slavery, and freeing the slaves was so important to Lincoln, he would have gotten the black man involved in fighting the war from the beginning.
She sounds a bit like Hillary, reinventing the reasons why she lost in 2016.
That actually may not have been what Haley was taught in her high school, which was founded as Wade Hampton Academy in 1964.
I would sure enjoy the current U.S. government being crushed today.
Agree
Fat fingers.
The secesh said right in their articles of secession why they were seceding. They seceded because they wanted to own slaves. Dress it up however you want.
Yes, when I took History in HS in the 60s, my excellent (and Harvard educated) teacher told us students, several times over, that the Civil War was not fought principally over slavery, although is was a component.
Y’all referring to the immoral FEDERAL income tax or slavery?
I’m refer8ng to Treason against The United States of America. The Income Tax happened, because Lincoln was a Whig.
Here in Alberta, we call it the war of northern aggression.
We’ve been lied to about everything. Absolutely everything.
Instead hundreds of thousands of Americans had to die. Pure evil.
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.