- cross-posted to:
- politics@kbin.social
- cross-posted to:
- politics@kbin.social
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.
Yes, there is certainly a hypocrisy in them advocating for “property” rights and at the same time advocating for confederation (rather than federation) and freedom of states. But Fugitive State Laws was not the primary reason of civil war nor was the primary reason for secession, as you noticed yourself. So, maybe initially they were for enforcing the federal laws. And after failure they become pro-separation and state rights. But characterizing that they were against state rates is just wrong and misleading.
Saying the civil war was about some principle of state’s rights is precisely what’s misleading and wrong.
The southern states who later seceded were the ones pushing the fugitive slave act, trying to impose their will on the northern states, a direct contradiction to the idea of “states’ rights.” And as you can see if you read the letters to secession yourself, they directly cite their inability to enforce slavery laws in northern states as the reason why they should be able to leave the union. No consistent high minded principle about state autonomy. All about maintaining slavery, however possible. And the threat of an anti slavery president was the last straw for them. Later when they wrote their own constitution, there was nothing about states’ rights to decide on slavery laws, the new confederacy deemed every state must allow slavery and wrote it into their constitution. Again, not “states rights.”
Yes, about state right to preserve slavery. They would not go to war just to impose slavery in northern states, it was never their goal. They wanted their “property” to be returned. They only insisted on that, but even that was not the reason for war. I agree that saying simply that they were for state rights it is also misleading, but less so than stating that they were against state rights.