Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is facing backlash after she was asked on Wednesday what caused the Civil War and failed to include slavery in her answer, instead saying the conflict was about state's rights. On Thursday, she attempted to walk back the comments, saying that slavery was an "unquestioned" aspect of the Civil War. Her words come just weeks before the first presidential primary. Christina Ruffini reports from Washington, D.C.

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is facing backlash after she was asked on Wednesday what caused the Civil War and failed to include slavery in her answer, instead saying the conflict was about state’s rights. On Thursday, she attempted to walk back the comments, saying that slavery was an “unquestioned” aspect of the Civil War. Her words come just weeks before the first presidential primary. Christina Ruffini reports from Washington, D.C.

  • @shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23•6 months ago

    I always use Mississippi’s:

    Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

    Oh, and boy does it go on from there.

    • @Ranvier
      14•6 months ago

      Agreed, I don’t see how anyone honest could read any of the letters of secession and not instantly see how slavery is the primary reason. South Carolina’s letter (first state to leave) is a nice easy counter argument to the states’ rights crowd, since it goes on and on for pages explicitly denying the northern states rights and whining that the north should be forced to enforce slavery laws there by the federal government, and how dare the northern states disobey federal laws enforcing slave owner’s “rights.” And the eventual confederate constitution would explicitly ban any state from outlawing slavery. Doesn’t sound very “states’ rights” to me:

      No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

      The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

      • @Madison420@lemmy.world
        4•6 months ago

        They see it as the primary reason they just veil it with pleasantries because it’s hard to deal with the fact that their forefathers were unequivocally racists, traitors and general bigots.

      • @mriguy@lemmy.world
        1•6 months ago

        Agreed, I don’t see how anyone honest could read any of the letters of secession and not instantly see how slavery is the primary reason.

        This is Republicans were talking about. Honesty is a disqualifying characteristic for the party.