Nikki Haley seeks to clarify cause of Civil War comments as backlash mounts

[jayem]

yes, I did not say that slavery ( owning other human beings was not wrong., but to say ( not that you did, but sometimes it seems that people seem to feel that ALL slave owners mistreated their slaves which makes no sense.

That's like saying it's wrong to rob a bank at gunpoint. But it's better if you can calm the bank employees with politeness and sympathy.

I was born and raised in Georgia. The Cornerstone speech that was quoted earlier was given in Savannah, my hometown. Stephen's words makes it clear that the Confederacy's original sin is really white supremacy. That was the justification for slavery. And--sadly--that racial prejudice still exists in this country 162 years later.

 

[RDKirk]

Sharecropers. They lived in houses provided by the landowner, farmed for shares of the crop with mules, horses, tools, and seed provided by the landlord, and bought goods on credit at stores in town or the "commissary" owned by the landlord. There were all sorts of crooked shenanigans going on that kept sharecroppers indented to the landlord, and thus bound to the land to work off their dept. Tenant farmers were a step above and paid rent and provided their own animals, tools, and seed, but could still fall into the same trap of dept. Technically free, they still lived in virtual slavery because they were unable to leave the landlord.

This is why a grandfather always stressed to us to never owe money to your employer.

Sharecropping was certainly not an example of "compensated appropriately."

My maternal great-great-grandparents managed to pay off the commissary debt by working off-season at a local sawmill and selling pies. They got off the sharecrop plantation and ran in the 1889 Oklahoma land rush, where they settled land on a river and set up their own sawmill...their sons changing their slave name to "Miller" upon enlistment into the Spanish-American war. The details are an interesting and cherished family story...it wasn't as simple as merely laying down the money and walking away. It required a certain level of tactical deception.

 

[RDKirk]

For instance, the questions of:

Do you support the police?
or
Do you think that we need to do more to reign in the police?

I have no problem answering "yes" to both those questions.

 

[Brihaha]

Well, I don't need any Haley Civil War comments to deter me from considering voting for her as president. She recently said she would pardon Donald Trump. No, thank you ma'am. Placating insurrectionists is not my bag. I would consider Christie though. He seems to be one of the few republicans (now) willing to speak truthfully about Mr Trump and his ambitions.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I have no problem answering "yes" to both those questions.

Neither do I, but neither of us is running for office

If you were say, a Democratic politician at an social justice event, or a Republican politician at a GOP event hosted by a Police Union... some "eggshell walking" would likely be in order.

 

[RDKirk]

Neither do I, but neither of us is running for office

If you were say, a Democratic politician at an social justice event, or a Republican politician at a GOP event hosted by a Police Union... some "eggshell walking" would likely be in order.

Well, the current mayor of Dallas is a black former police officer. He's been a Democrat who also supports the police (to the ire of many local Democrats), but at the end of his second term (his mandatory final term) as mayor, he's recently switched parties.

 

[Tuur]

Sharecropping was certainly not an example of "compensated appropriately."

I agree. That's my point. Room and board isn't necessarily appropriately compensated.

 

[RoBo1988]

Haley should have finished her answer with: "you know the thing!" and all would be fine.

 

[Bradskii]

Like it or not, as long as there is ignorance out in the ether of American society (and those people who are ignorant on certain subjects vote), politicians will continue to tailor their rhetoric around not alienating them if they feel like they could be up against a tight race.

Then you now know why the question was asked. Was she going to answer honestly or 'tailor her rhetoric around not alienating...those people who are ignorant on certain subjects'.

Now we know.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Well, the current mayor of Dallas is a black former police officer. He's been a Democrat who also supports the police (to the ire of many local Democrats), but at the end of his second term (his mandatory final term) as mayor, he's recently switched parties.

Is he allowed to run again at some later point. Not next term or anything

 

[Bradskii]

Neither do I, but neither of us is running for office

If you were say, a Democratic politician at an social justice event, or a Republican politician at a GOP event hosted by a Police Union... some "eggshell walking" would likely be in order.

Any politician worth his or her salt has a bagfull of openers that obviate the need to be blunt.
'That's a good question, and let me just say...'
'If by that you mean...'
'I think we can all agree...'
'Well, let me say first...'

This is Politics101.

 

[jacorian]

Nikki Haley on Thursday sought to clarify her comments about the Civil War one day after a voter in New Hampshire called her out for not mentioning slavery as a cause of the war.

“I mean, of course the Civil War was about slavery,” Haley told radio host Jack Heath Thursday morning.

[What a difference a day makes!]

Her comments come amid intense backlash inside and outside the GOP after Haley told a New Hampshire town hall crowd that the Civil War was about government interfering in people’s freedoms.

“I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do,” Haley had said

“I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are,” Haley added. “I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people,” she added.

The voter criticized her for not mentioning slavery in her answer.

[Later, the voter, speaking to reporters] said a video of Haley being asked “essentially” the same question when she was running for governor of South Carolina had prompted him to ask it again now that she’s running for president.

“The answer that she gave was very similar to the answer that she gave tonight,” he said

 

[jacorian]

First of WHO sold them into slavery? Second of all, once they were here ( remember they were here for generations at that point their family WAS here.

Also, funny enough there is more slavery now than there has ever been. In fact, the kind of slavery today could be argue is worse today than traditional slavery.

Not to mention that in many places the slavery of today is often VERY poorly enforced because unless the victims are minors they often have to prove that they are in fact victims.

I think she took an ideological approach on theme, not plot & she may or may not been certain whether this was a setup. She saw govt in that context failing in its role as it usually does of protecting basic human dignity. Check any history of any region of the world. People may misinterpet that they think philanthropy comes from govt officials. It never has. She was indicating that the agent-aka govt--should have been protecting the freedoms of people but in most cases fail as it did here. So she examined it from a very broad perspective. The South then decided to break away to carry out their vision w/o having any clue of human dignity. Lincoln's initial role was to preserve the union, not arrest the institution of slavery. He too did not come out & run on the issue. While in office it dawned at him (the Gettysburg Address) is what is the desire of Divine Providence & that the South was missing a wonderful opportunity. Be makers or fishers of men-in the wisdom sense, not the assigned labor sense. We continue to see history repeat today-it may not be obvious-that people are still exploited the world over. Tribal warfare, humans live in tension. At the heart it seems consistent in history that some leader, which becomes institutionalized in the form of bureaucrats or people with title, are always out to usurp the power of God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Any politician worth his or her salt has a bagfull of openers that obviate the need to be blunt.
'That's a good question, and let me just say...'
'If by that you mean...'
'I think we can all agree...'
'Well, let me say first...'

This is Politics101.

And Haley is a good politician (in the same way that DeSantis is not). That's why it was so stunning that she fell so badly on this question.

 

[RDKirk]

Is he allowed to run again at some later point. Not next term or anything

I'm not sure about that. There is quite a bit of speculation about his plans. He might run for a state office.

 

[Larniavc]

It would seem not

Lemme do you a solid.

Slavery= abhorrent
Slavers= abhorrent
Society propped up by slavery= abhorrent
Slavery enthusiasts= abhorrent

So for even a person who maintains that slavery had some, however small upsides the clever thing to do, so as not to give people a really, really REALLY! bad impression would be to agree that that slavery was bad.

Would you like to be a slave? It's like going to jail without having committed a crime. Sound fun? Didn't think so.

 

[Bradskii]

And Haley is a good politician (in the same way that DeSantis is not). That's why it was so stunning that she fell so badly on this question.

If you watch her answer but skipped the first few seconds, you'd think she was discussing state versus federal rights. Which is quite reasonable. And would have assumed she'd started her answer with one of the usual platitudes. 'I think we can all agree that...slavery is a stain on this great nation's character.' And then moved on with 'That said...if by your question you are asking about the tension between states rights and those of the federal government, then let me say...'

No-one would have blinked an eye.

It's remarkable that she didn't realise what was required, what needed to be stated, to reach the point where state's rights could enter the discussion. In my opinion, she wasn't trying to avoid the obvious. More depressingly, it never entered her head.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Lemme do you a solid.

Slavery= abhorrent
Slavers= abhorrent
Society propped up by slavery= abhorrent
Slavery enthusiasts= abhorrent

So for even a person who maintains that slavery had some, however small upsides the clever thing to do, so as not to give people a really, really REALLY! bad impression would be to agree that that slavery was bad.

Would you like to be a slave? It's like going to jail without having committed a crime. Sound fun? Didn't think so.

What is in jail though? That has been my whole point that not all slave owners beat their slaves and usually when they were they were beat by the formman not the owner. In other words if you are going to compare slavery to jail what is provided in jail under the law food, clothing, housing medical treatment sometimes even education. Why do you think some people repeatedly commit non-violent crimes in many ( though not all cases it is so they can get locked up. Why because they will be fed, clothed, showered and housed

 

[Bradskii]

What is in jail though? That has been my whole point that not all slave owners beat their slaves and usually when they were they were beat by the formman not the owner. In other words if you are going to compare slavery to jail what is provided in jail under the law food, clothing, housing medical treatment sometimes even education. Why do you think some people repeatedly commit non-violent crimes in many ( though not all cases it is so they can get locked up. Why because they will be fed, clothed, showered and housed

Please stop.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Please stop.

OK we can agree to disagree, but if you were going to compare incarceration to slavery then you need to realize that people often "stayed" for many of the same reasons.