Here's the video:
I'm looking at that today, because I see that a lot of other people are going back to that video, relevant as it is to the seemingly inane answer she gave this past Wednesday when asked "What was the cause of the Civil War?" Now, I think I was too charitable in calling her recent statement a "word salad," as if she were unprepared, inept, and pretty much what Trump called her — a "bird brain."
In 2010, presidential candidate Nikki Haley told a pro-Confederate group that states have a right to secede.
— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) February 14, 2023
Interviewer: “Do you believe the states of the United States have the right to secede from the Union?”
Haley: “I think that they do. I mean, the Constitution says that.” pic.twitter.com/QwJNdhZpDV
It seems she's really thought about the Civil War for a while and come up with a political position that she'd said out loud quite clearly on at least one other occasion.
Yes, she was talking to "a pro-Confederate group," but: 1. She talked to a pro-Confederate group, 2. She gave them what, presumably, they wanted, and 3. She's repeated this bullshit/true belief.
Posts
42 comments:
It's above her pay grade, but was she charming?
Professional Politician at work. Vote at your own risk.
I am sure that the current crop of history ignorant voters would be perfectly happy with her confused answer. In her defense, it would take moderate knowledge of the history before, during and after the Civil war to have given a succinct and accurate answer to the question " was the Civil War about slavery?" I believe entire college courses attempt to answer that question. The shortest correct answer is probably "yes and no". Can you imagine how well that would have gone over?
She’s still pandering to the State that elected her governor. She’s not ready for a national stage and that creates the condition in which she’ll speak word salad to obfuscate instead of being honest, exactly what drives the babbling from VP Harris. So I guess this means Haley is another “progressive Republican” or IOW a Uniparty member who is wearing the Washington General’s jersey to run for office instead of the Globetrotters’ uniform.
I like Haley and would gladly vote for her if she were the nominee but this was stupid.
Yes, there were major differences between the North and the South prior to the war but the fact remains that if slavery did not exist secession would not have occurred.
Events like the Missouri compromise were driven by slavery.
It's amusing when a politician with no fixed beliefs nonetheless manages to get her tit in the wringer.
Yes, it was about slavery. No, it was not about anything else, because all the other things that are put forth as “alternative” causes come back to slavery.
I repeat: "She now claims her questioner was a plant (like that changes anything) but, what he really was, is a citizen who knew her ways and biases too well. That guy heard her blow that issue one time too often, and just knew she'd do it again, before the nation, if only given the chance."
I've spoken to pro-Confederate groups (if chapters of the UDC and SCV count*) as well as other groups and organizations of varying political hue.
And I'm such a great catch that my SCV friends try to recruit me. I'm qualified on both sides of my mother's family, and was steeped in Rebel ideology growing up, but you read and learn if you're smart, and I don't think secession in defense of slavery was a sacred cause, and say so.
*Formal meetings generally include the PoA to the American flag, and the percentage of US military veterans among their membership is probably 3 times the average, and 10 times the average for university faculty.
Pro slavery and Jim Crow are two winning issues of the GOP platform.
If you are/were the governor of a Southern state, you'd better have a stock answer.
I don't think Lincoln gave a damn about slaves.
They were a political tool.
The good news is she’s been smoked out by people from the rest of the country who only a few weeks ago like the cut of her jib.
…bad news is…all the other alternatives including a sitting President that is too old for…forget about a word salad…incapable of rising to the level of incoherence…
She gave a crappy answer that neither acknowledged that slavery was central to the Civil War nor provided an accurate and meaningful response on the "rights" issue, which is maybe understandable on the first, off-the-cuff response, but she and her team have had multiple days since then to spin, and in addition to not providing any meaningful clarity, still come off sounding like they were on the side of States' Rights, which at the time were basically the right to secede and the right to permit slavery. Plus she still hasn't tied Democrats the slavery of the period, and their willingness to break the country up and kill off a big chunk of its male youth to preserve their "right" to human chattel.
Bad politically and morally.
She’s still pandering to the State that elected her governor.
Sounds like she does not believe she is moving on to higher office and is looking to remain viable in SC. Serious question - is it really necessary for becoming governor in SC in 2023 to deny that slavery was central to the Civil War?
Pro slavery and Jim Crow are two winning issues of the GOP platform.
Actually, pro slavery and Jim Crow are two longstanding platforms of the Democratic Party.
manages to get her tit in the wringer
I find it amusing also that probably most of the commenters here know what a wringer is.
And most probably know the expression the phrase comes from
"ain't had so much excitement around here since grandma got her tit caught in the wringer."
John Henry
"I can see Fort Sumpter from my house." - Nikki Haley
I've been following presidential campaigns since 1960
Thos is the first time I ever recall anything about the war between the states.
Has any candidate ever been asked this kind of question?
John Henry
I also think one side was fighting for tradition and another for change, but the tradition being changed was slavery. The thing is slavery was bad and needed to end. And if you want to avoid getting into discussions of racism, although it would be appropriate for the Civil War slavery; then parlay the discussion into something about modern day slavery and the sex trafficking of children.
The reasons for the Civil War have been argued ad nauseam. One side says it was fought over states' rights. Others contend it was fought over slavery. I think both sides of that argument are correct. The states' rights argument includes the then-constitutional right to hold people 'in service' i.e. slavery. That same argument was used to justify secession as a means to continued self-governance without a distant centralized calling the shots. Slavery was the most prominent states' rights issue leading up to the war along with tariffs and taxes, but it was the Southrons' belief that they had the right to secede which precipitated the violence. So, to my mind, the primary cause of the Civil War was secession.
Do not misinterpret me; I do not believe that states had a right to leave the union, especially those that signed the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union".
I would hope a candidate for elected office would have enough knowledge to understand how interwoven the issues were and would be able to express how they coalesced into armed conflict.
That the Southern Democrats also banned Lincoln and the Republicans from appearing on voters' ballots shouldn't cause anyone to draw parallels with what is happening today, right? Right?
Goetz von Berlichingen.
In case you've forgotten Haley hauled down the Confederate flag in 2015, after promising in 2010, and 2014 to never do so. She had no intention of running for SC Governorship in 2018, so the decision cost her nothing.
She's GOPe. She'll tell people what they want to hear on the campagign trail. Once in office, she will listen to the big donors and follow her desire to get good MSM Coverage.
It reminds me of McCain in 2000, who told SC voters he was 110 percent againt hauling down the flag. Then in his book, written in 2003 (could be later) said he thought the flag was racist and everyone who wanted it to stay up was racist, and he just lied to win votes.
That's GOPe and "Mavericks" for you.
What I remember from watching Ken Burn's PBS doc 'The Civil War' was inconclusive. There was no unanimity from historians about what principally triggered the war. In those days, States Rights was a big fucking deal, to use Biden lingo. Now, states' rights are mostly whatever the Supremes say they are.
In fairness to Haley. I can't help thinking that some of the flack is because she's a woman.
Likely a pant, but she was not prepared. After 3 years of Biden, being prepared has grown in importance.
Slavery is and was wrong at all levels. However, I believe that states should be allowed to leave the union if that is the will of the people. Anyway, it's water under the bridge now and was settled 150 years ago.
As Trump knows, it's very hard to provide a consistent line of bullshit for the so-called conservatives.
That's why he's so happy to be exempt from the usual requirements to be coherent: he's a "billionaire"; a "TV star" (who none of us ever watched, admit it); a genius businessman (don't mind those bankruptcies, everybody does that); a lady's man (and happy to pay them one way or another). So on January 6, 2021, he could, in a single speech instruct his followers to go down there and fight like hell, and then say to be peaseful about it, and in the aftermath change his story every other day.
Ms Hayley is just an ordinary human, and can be lambasted when she says what one batch of loons wants and later has to say something else for a different audience. That's an occupational hazard for all politicians, except one.
Lem the artificially intelligent said...
In fairness to Haley. I can't help thinking that some of the flack is because she's a woman.
She's getting flack because she was born in SC. Even though she's someone who really doesn't have a dog in that fight* she should have known that any Southern politician is going to get asked that. It's one of the oldest Leftie tricks in the book; ask 'em about the war and paint them as an unrepentant Confederate who's going to "put ya'll back in chains". She got caught flatfooted and didn't know what to say. Not a good look for someone running for POTUS.
*Which is why, as rocean says above, she could get away with removing the battle flag from the SC capitol grounds. There was no opportunity for the left to make it into a 'fuck you' moment.
Being honest about the civil war is being honest about whatever the fuss was about at the time. There was a feud between Polk and Lincoln that probably played into it.
Ah so even the term “perpetual” is malleable to the progressives here. No wonder they project Spandex-like properties to the Constitution.
To the monomaniacal people who insist on injecting But Trump! into this discussion, most of us just skip right over your entire post. If you have something germane to Althouse’s prompt try using your internal editor before hitting publish. It might be read then.
Well, at least she didn't correct the questioner: "You mean the War of Northern Aggression?"
Chick disqualified herself several months ago.
Sure sounds like a variant of the old "Lost Cause" argument. Giving the "Lost Cause" proponents more credit than they deserve, Wikipedia describes it (sugar coats it) thus:
"Lost Cause proponents re-imagine slavery as a positive good and deny that alleviation of the conditions of slavery was the central cause of the American Civil War, contrary to statements made by Confederate leaders, such as in the Cornerstone Speech. Instead, they frame the war as a defense of states' rights, and as necessary to protect their agrarian economy against supposed Northern aggression. The Union victory is thus explained as the result of its greater size and industrial wealth, while the Confederate side is portrayed as having greater morality and military skill. Modern historians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations, noting that the central cause of the war was slavery."
Do not misinterpret me; I do not believe that states had a right to leave the union, especially those that signed the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union"
Is this perpetual union under the old confederation act similar to the "forever and ever" "til death do us part" and similar oaths pledged in marriage.
So no divorce then ever, right?
John Henry
Ms Hayley is just an ordinary human, and can be lambasted when she says what one batch of loons wants and later has to say something else for a different audience
Just to clarify that second audience is the bigger batch of loons, bigger in both quantity and intensity of looniness..
Of course, many of the same people mocking Haley's views on State's Rights and the Civil War see no problem with the Colorado or Maine Secretary of State (indeed, the election officials of each State) making their own interpretation of disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in refusing to include a person on the Presidential ballot. As we speak, the lawyers for Colorado are arguing that the SCOTUS should refuse to hear an appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court.
That is by far the most extreme assertion of State's Rights that we have seen since 1865. If the SCOTUS were to adopt the Democrat's position, every State could exclude candidates from its Presidential ballot under Section 3, applying its own standards and definitions of "insurrection" "engage" and "aid and comfort to enemies" with no right to due process or appeal.
It never ended.
At last! John Henry @ 11:25am nods to the thing that has been troubling me ever since this came up: What on earth does This question have to do with somebody running for office today?
I think Haley is a doofus -- a deadly doofus given her love of the NeoCon forever wars position -- but still I could see myself coming out in favor of her if she had responded:
"What the hell kind of stupid trick question is this? If you were to ask about the consequences of the civil war, and the fallout from it that still might be affecting us today, that would be one thing. But a discussion about the causes, and in particularly trying to assign weights to various aspects, is the sort of thing that history professors debate and there's not complete unanimity among them. So you can just fuck right off, and I'll take a hopefully more relevant question from somebody else."
(And she would only earn half credit if she did it without the expletives; sometimes you really do need to show how steamed and outraged you are.)
The appropriate answer was “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
[T]he State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act….
[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 States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.....
The above is an excerpt of South Carolina's Ordinance of Secession, December 20, 1860.
South Carolina was the first state of the United States to ordain its secession from the union of states. It was the first state whose military fired on United States soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina thus elevating the conflict to a state of war against the union. The governor of South Carolina during that time, William Henry Gist, was a strong supporter of states rights and chattel slavery.
Nicki Haley was also a governor of South Carolina. I don't think she supports slavery or is racist, but she cannot easily say that the Civil War was about slavery because it offends too many republicans, each and every one of them "True American Patriots". But also, she can't easily say it because she has no backbone.
If she feels this strongly about tradition, why did her parents move here?
She says anything, any time. Completely unmoored.
I saw a Nikki Haley panel truck – festooned with her posters – parked in a “vista” area visible from the highway as I drove back into far northern California on I-5 from Oregon yesterday.
One thing Republican candidates have to do is recognize when they are being set up. A cute 9 year old asking about the Civil War? I am reminded of the scene in Men In Black where Will Smith shoots Little Suzy in the firing range test. "If you ask me, I'd say she was up to something."
Remember when Bill Clinton got asked whether he wore, "Boxers or briefs?", and just aw-shucks answered, "Usually briefs. I can't believe she asked that." Clinton was questioned by a young giggling blond babe in an MTV forum. The idea was to cement Bill's appeal to young women as a player, I guess, and everyone got a chuckle from the press reporting on the impropriety, of which Clinton continued provided more during his tenure in office.
Newt Gingrich got setup with the same question in an MTV forum a few months later, by a male TV reporter, and ripped the actual reporter a new one for wasting a question to a presidential candidate on such a trivial issue. Newt was excoriated in the press for being so uptight. Had Newt recognized the opportunity, he could have replied, "I'm not Bill Clinton. I don't answer purposefully improper questions to curry favor with giggling mindless kids. Ask me something serious."
Haley could have answered, "Why do you ask such an odd question in a forum like this?" And avoided the trap she fell into.
Say, Rich, how is your search for evidence of my position on Confederate memorials going ("Fighting tooth and nail to preserve them")?
Ought to be a cinch for a bright boy like you.
Post a Comment