Nikki Haley / the slave ?

[Lees]

Nikki Haley was asked what was the War Between the States fought over. And she didn't answer the 'only' accepted answer America will allow. She didn't mention it was fought over slavery. Which of course has caused a chorus of liberals, and some conservative competition, claiming she is a racist.

Funny isn't it, as I have pointed out before, why bring up the slave question which was almost 200 years ago? Everyone always accuses the Southernor of not being able to just let it go. But who is the one always bringing it up? Answer: Those who can make political and monetary gain through it.

Why didn't they just ask her if she was a racist? Answer: Because she would have answered no. Instead they ask her about slavery knowing that if you don't agree with the American smoke up your backside view, you are deemed a racist. My, my, the extremes the Democratic left will go.

I've always said if you don't believe slavery was the reason for the War Between The States, you still must address the slavery issue. Because that is what America wants everyone to believe.

Though slavery was very much the 'instigation' for the war, you have to go back to the motives of those using slavery for that war, to find out what the war was fought over. In other words, America depicts the war as the South had slaves and the North went to war to free the slaves. Which is the big lie.

1.) The North had a problem with slavery because slavery fueled the economy of the South which was in good shape.

2.) The North had a problem with slavery because she didn't want black slaves coming up to the lily white north. Thus the Missouri Compromise line of division.

3.) Only a few 'abolitionist's' were concerned over the humanitarian issue of slaves, and they were on the lunatic fringe. Many were lawless criminals.

4.) The North didn't give a rat's *** about the blacks. They just wanted to destroy the South's economy, which they finally did, but with war.

5.) Lincoln was willing to enslave the blacks forever under the 13th amendment if the South just wouldn't secede. Why don't they take the Lincoln Memorial down like they take the Confederate monuments down? Because that would go against the American smoke. American government needs to worship Lincoln hoping to unify. Blacks need to worship Lincoln, as their Moses down from the mountain, cause that's how they make hay.

6.) Why don't reporters ask Liberals if they would have supported Lincoln's effort to enslave the blacks forever?

I hope Nikki Haley will do a little study about slavery so that she can address it next time, and there will be a next time. She was correct in saying the war wasn't over slavery, but you still must address the slavery issue. You must have an answer. And the truth is the answer, but you have to dig to find it.

Lees

 

[Jason_76]

The Republicans viewed the blacks as a form of forced immigrant labor competing with free labor, but the Republicans had no plan to end slavery in the south, but the south believed it did or the south was upset they might not be able to expand slavery.

The sentiment was threatening or they wouldn't have left the union.

 

[Albion]

I hope Nikki Haley will do a little study about slavery so that she can address it next time, and there will be a next time. She was correct in saying the war wasn't over slavery, but you still must address the slavery issue. You must have an answer. And the truth is the answer, but you have to dig to find it.

Lees

I don't know exactly how I feel about Nikki Haley as a candidate for president, but I do sympathize with her in this matter.

1) It was a trick question and one that was totally unrelated to the present campaign. I'm sure that no one on the premises was ready for it. It was posed by a newsman who meant to get even with Haley for having commented about his earlier putdown of Haley and women of her age which resulted in him getting fired from his job.

2) He claimed the high ground in the current flap because, as he complained, Haley didn't use the word "slavery" in her answer. Well, so what? She answered the question. And in the process, she answered it with a more thorough treatment of the issue than just to say the usual "yes, it was all about slavery." She directed his attention to the underlying causes of the war which people often ignore.

3) And Haley--the former governor of the first state to secede (South Carolina)--is not a dunce who hasn't any idea what the histories of the institution of slavery and her own state in the Civil War amount to! Nevertheless, some commentators seemed eager to take advantage of the opportunity to theorize that she must have been stumped by the question.

 

[Jason_76]

The 19th century moral climate was turning against slavery. I mean, could even really manly men, much less women, take bull whipping these days 🫢? Pardon, my dark sarcasm.

 

[Lees]

I don't know exactly how I feel about Nikki Haley as a candidate for president, but I do sympathize with her in this matter.

1) It was a trick question and one that was totally unrelated to the present campaign. I'm sure that no one on the premises was ready for it. It was posed by a newsman who meant to get even with Haley for having commented about his earlier putdown of Haley and women of her age which resulted in him getting fired from his job.

2) He claimed the high ground in the current flap because, as he complained, Haley didn't use the word "slavery" in her answer. Well, so what? She answered the question. And in the process, she answered it with a more thorough treatment of the issue than just to say the usual "yes, it was all about slavery." She directed his attention to the underlying causes of the war which people often ignore.

3) And Haley--the former governor of the first state to secede (South Carolina)--is not a dunce who hasn't any idea what the histories of the institution of slavery and her own state in the Civil War amount to! Nevertheless, some commentators seemed eager to take advantage of the opportunity to theorize that she must have been stumped by the question.

I sympathize with her also as the question will not now go away. Every candidate will have to answer to the question that the War Between The States was fought over slavery. And all act like the answer was a simple one. But it is not a simple one. And those who think the war was over slavery are simple minded.

Haley's answer was correct. I forget exactly how she worded it, but It was about the abuse of government. But that is not the American answer. The American answer is that the South was evil slave holders and the North was the good people coming to rescue and free the slaves. In America that's all you need to know and you pass the course.

It's the great American lie. Again, to any who believe that war was not over slavery, you must answer the question of the role of slavery. Because slavery was very much the instigation used to create that war.

I think a brief and correct answer to such a question would be, "the war was fought over maintaining the Constitution".

Lees

 

[Lamb]

When doing research into my genealogy, I found I had a relative who went to fought in the Civil War because he was against slavery. He was from the north, so saying that those who fought were only against the southern economy is not full truth!

 

[Albion]

When doing research into my genealogy, I found I had a relative who went to fought in the Civil War because he was against slavery. He was from the north, so saying that those who fought were only against the southern economy is not full truth!

in fact, quite a few northerners saw the war as a struggle to keep the nation intact.

When Lincoln decided, halfway through the war, to make ending slavery the issue with his Emancipation Proclamation (but only in the states that had joined the Confederacy, not including the four that stayed with the Union)...

...there were many Union soldiers and ordinary citizens who were stunned and disapproving of that new rationale and it was for the reason that they had not signed on to free slaves but to save their country.

 

[Lees]

When doing research into my genealogy, I found I had a relative who went to fought in the Civil War because he was against slavery. He was from the north, so saying that those who fought were only against the southern economy is not full truth!

Wars are determined by the government, by the political powers. They set the reasons for going to war, and they create the facades to cover their reasons.

The North was against slavery because it fueled the Southern economy which was doing well. The North had a tariff on goods coming to their harbors. The South had no or low tariff and more ships were choosing Southern ports to unload their goods than the Northern ones. The North was against slavery because of the Western expansion. They didn't want states carved out of the new territory to give power to the Southern states. The North was against the Constitution, as it protected slavery, and could not change it through the normal legal process. See the Dred Scott case and the North's reaction.

Your relative may have thought he was fighting to set the slaves free. But what he was really fighting for was the overthrow of the Constitution. Which is why immediately after the war, the Constitution was changed...through a dog and pony show.

Those New England states got what they wanted. The destruction of slavery and the South's economy. They now controlled how the economy would work. They now had power over the western expansion. And they had the Constitution to back them up...after the dog and pony show. In other words, the rest of the countries interests would be used to benefit the New England states, not their own.

The War Between The States was over power and money. Slavery was just one of the instigating factors. The tariff was another. The Constitution was another. States rights was another. Western expansion was another.

You see? Everyone acts like the 'simple answer is slavery'. But it is not simple at all. They want it to be simple in order to hide what the real reasons were.

Why isn't the Lincoln Memorial destroyed for Lincoln's willingness to enslave the blacks forever?

Lees

 

[Lees]

in fact, quite a few northerners saw the war as a struggle to keep the nation intact.

When Lincoln decided, halfway through the war, to make ending slavery the issue with his Emancipation Proclamation (but only in the states that had joined the Confederacy, not including the four that stayed with the Union)...

...there were many Union soldiers and ordinary citizens who were stunned and disapproving of that new rationale and it was for the reason that they had not signed on to free slaves but to save their country.

Yes. And read about the New York city Draft riots where many blacks and white abolitionists were hanged and killed because of the Emancipation Proclamation. It's estimated that about 700 people were killed.

Lees

 

[Jason_76]

When doing research into my genealogy, I found I had a relative who went to fought in the Civil War because he was against slavery. He was from the north, so saying that those who fought were only against the southern economy is not full truth!

Yeah, but have been cause he saw slaves as a threat to his job only.

 

[Lamb]

Yeah, but have been cause he saw slaves as a threat to his job only.

Not at all. My whole family was against slavery and refused to own them. I have read the letters.

 

[Lees]

What do you mean, "refused to own them"?

You say it as though someone was trying to force them to own slaves. No one was forced to own slaves.

If one had the need, and the money, the legal institution of slavery was there for them to use.

Lees

 

[Jason_76]

It was a different time, like Ancient Rome was. Anyway, even these days it's easy to get into bondage by simply getting in situations where people think you owe them something, but the big difference is absence of cruel punishments like flogging and taking babies away from moms.

 

[Lees]

It was a different time, like Ancient Rome was. Anyway, even these days it's easy to get into bondage by simply getting in situations where people think you owe them something, but the big difference is absence of cruel punishments like flogging and taking babies away from moms.

It was different because slavery was accepted as a legal institution by the United States government. It was protected by the Constitution and upheld in the Dred Scott case, by the Supreme Court. In other words, the South wasn't doing anything wrong.

The South didn't start slavery in this country. The U.S. started it.

If the war was over slavery, then the North is guilty of making war illegally. Which means the South was fighting for the Constitution and what America stood for. And the North are the insurrectionist's and traitors against the Constitution.

You can't have it both ways.

Lees