VIRAL MOMENT: Nikki Haley Asked Point Blank By Voter: 'What Was The Cause Of The U.S. Civil War?'
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Great turnaround lol. "What do you think the cause of the civil war was?" I would have followed up if I was that guy with, "So you don't know what the cause of the civil war was then?" although I'm sure they pulled that microphone away from him pretty fast.
Bigfoot
.450/400 Nitro Ex
First off, Nikki "the swamp creature" Haley sucks.
Secondly, I was born and raised in the cotton belt of South Carolina. My family tree has always been there and is still there. We refer to America's so-called Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression" for a good reason. But I suppose that's for a different thread and time, maybe.
Secondly, I was born and raised in the cotton belt of South Carolina. My family tree has always been there and is still there. We refer to America's so-called Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression" for a good reason. But I suppose that's for a different thread and time, maybe.
Last edited:
RedBreast21
.223 Rem
I spent a lot of time with my kids on this one question. Correcting what the indoctrination/education system installed in their heads.
The idea that poor non slave owning folks which made up the majority of the south and of the rank and file for the southern army, sent their families off to war over slavery is preposterous.
The best argument for the war is found in Gettysburg.
An even better argument is in the writings and arguments of both North and South Congressman and Senators. Not the ones written in our history books but of the lesser known names.
History is written by the victor.
The idea that poor non slave owning folks which made up the majority of the south and of the rank and file for the southern army, sent their families off to war over slavery is preposterous.
The best argument for the war is found in Gettysburg.
An even better argument is in the writings and arguments of both North and South Congressman and Senators. Not the ones written in our history books but of the lesser known names.
History is written by the victor.
Cavalry
.308 Win
And all this time I thought the civil war was about money and power with a far distant focus on slavery.
Lincoln himself in his inaugural speech just 4 months before succession, remarked that he had no intentions on ending slavery.
Lincoln himself in his inaugural speech just 4 months before succession, remarked that he had no intentions on ending slavery.
RedBreast21
.223 Rem
Yes he did. Also the Emancipation Proclamation years after the start of the war. Both a great introduction to get kids to see the system of lies.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
My brother inlaw is from North Carolina . We have a family burial plot here in NY State. He made it very clear that no way he was to be buried with a bunch of Yankees ... Southern soil ... All the way .
Bigfoot
.450/400 Nitro Ex
The Emancipation Proclamation was delivered on January 1st 1863. Roughly 3 months after the Battle of Sharpsburg, otherwise known by the Yankees as Antietam. A battle in which the Army of Northern Virginia fought the Union Army to a draw. The important part of this is that Sharpsburg/Antietam is only around 60 miles from Washington DC.
In Lincoln's mind, and tactically he was right. That's way too close for the Army of Northern Virginia to be to DC. And by that point in the war, the Confederate Army has been on a roll. So in response, Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation for one reason and one reason only. And that was to stop England from supplying military arms to the Confederacy. As it was, Lincoln did not consider the negroes to be equals himself.
Once Lincoln made the war about slavery. A non-slave country such as England could no longer morally supply military arms to the Confederacy. And that's what the Emancipation Proclamation was really truly all about. THAT'S the only reason that Lincoln brought the slavery issue to the forefront of the war. That was almost 2 years after the War of Northern Aggression went hot.
The War of Northern Aggression was really fought over an overbearing tyrannical Central Government telling people what they can and can't do. But economics was the root of that.
There was a time earlier in history when the South joined the gentlemen's club. Then the gentlemen's club changed the rules. Then the South decided that because of the rules being changed they no longer wanted to be in the club. Then the overbearing centralized government under Lincoln ordered their Army to invade the South and force them to stay in the club.
That was the cause of the War of Northern Aggression.
And Nikki Haley is an asshole, I'm just saying.
Last edited:
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
She had 24 hours to look things up lol.
Our Family cemetery in Florida dates to right at 1865 and growing up, the "War of Northern Aggression" WAS taught throughout the Grades in School...most will blindly argue it was about Slavery, and while a component, by far there was much, much more to it than that....people down there put their money where their mouth was: It wasn't just a bunch of Farm Boys with their squirrel Rifles taking pot-shots at Union Troops. (many of whom were fresh immigrants promised Food, Shelter, and Citizenship...wonder why that tid-bit would be important today?)
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
Life is nuanced. There are a lot of motivations going on within a person, let alone an entire group of people. To distill a fundamental portion of history down to one aspect, while life experience screams out to us otherwise, is naivete. At worst, it's manipulation.
Political theatre. Please disregard.
Political theatre. Please disregard.
If you actually spend time independently learning about the civil war it's far more complicated than what they teach in NY state public education.
Most regular citizens in southern states didn't own slaves or give a shit about slavery one way or they other. Most of the people in the south who did the dying and suffering didn't own slaves.
Many individual counties in southern states voted In favor of remaining in the union. As an example counties like in eastern Tennessee.
Many states voted to secede just because their neighbors did.
Many states just felt (shocker) the political process was broken And elected officials no longer represented them, their districts and their interests (everything old is new again right?) And since they felt they were not being heard seceded.
Most people in the south did not own slaves. That was the wealthy plantation owners. The guys who got the political officer appointments due to social status that ended up as appointed Colonels and generals and shit for prestige. They commanded the poor peasant working class white farmers who were trying to just live their lives and couldn't even afford shoes.
Many in the south viewed the war as an issue of states rights, federal authoritarian rule, broken political process and northern aggression.
The war is infinitely more complicated than just "the south liked slaves, slavery is bad, the north is good" that you are taught in NY state.
What happened is actually quite tragic and if we aren't careful we are already drawing many contemporary parallels towards with our current state of domestic political affairs. People would be wise to learn from history to not repeat similar mistakes and misjudgements.
If you want any proof at all. Go back in your delorian time machine and ask the south why they didn't press on to attack Washington in 1861-62 after the battle of Manassas. The south could have immediately taken the war to the north as the north was in disarray but they didn't view it that way, they viewed it as they were defending their homeland from aggression.
Most regular citizens in southern states didn't own slaves or give a shit about slavery one way or they other. Most of the people in the south who did the dying and suffering didn't own slaves.
Many individual counties in southern states voted In favor of remaining in the union. As an example counties like in eastern Tennessee.
Many states voted to secede just because their neighbors did.
Many states just felt (shocker) the political process was broken And elected officials no longer represented them, their districts and their interests (everything old is new again right?) And since they felt they were not being heard seceded.
Most people in the south did not own slaves. That was the wealthy plantation owners. The guys who got the political officer appointments due to social status that ended up as appointed Colonels and generals and shit for prestige. They commanded the poor peasant working class white farmers who were trying to just live their lives and couldn't even afford shoes.
Many in the south viewed the war as an issue of states rights, federal authoritarian rule, broken political process and northern aggression.
The war is infinitely more complicated than just "the south liked slaves, slavery is bad, the north is good" that you are taught in NY state.
What happened is actually quite tragic and if we aren't careful we are already drawing many contemporary parallels towards with our current state of domestic political affairs. People would be wise to learn from history to not repeat similar mistakes and misjudgements.
If you want any proof at all. Go back in your delorian time machine and ask the south why they didn't press on to attack Washington in 1861-62 after the battle of Manassas. The south could have immediately taken the war to the north as the north was in disarray but they didn't view it that way, they viewed it as they were defending their homeland from aggression.
Hochulsucks1234
.357 mag
I hate Nikki...but shes not wrong....
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
in her rant she left out gun freedoms
even thou that was in the other war ..
LOL ..
the Civil was not about slavery .. it was dragged into it as a scapegoat ..
i believe it was more of that some states wanted to be left alone from other states forcing rules on them ..
like NYS Telling PA you can't sell semi auto rifles to us here now unless we got special papers from the Queen of NYS ..
RedBreast21
.223 Rem
All excellent points and true.
The mindset of the then Northern Union elitists exists still in American and European corporations today with their never ending greed for cheap labor and materials. Today the modern slaves are over seas in countries like China, Indonesia, Africa and Central/South America. Back then slavery fed the northern factories with cheap raw materials. The Southern States were not getting the federal dollars necessary to create factories and build an economy in the South, providing training for skilled work and workers in the South that didn't own any slaves. Starving farmers not being allowed to participate in the growing America. The House of Reps controlled by Northern seats as a result of huge population increase, ensured the federal dollars were allocated for the North and not the South. Plenty of supporting evidence of this in the written and oral arguments in the House chamber. When legislative relief would not be obtained the southern states wanted to sell their raw materials overseas for a higher price, but congress stepped in and place an import tax and all goods from Europe manufactured using materials from the South. That killed any deal with European countries the South needed. The South had only one buyer and that buyer set the price by eliminating any competitor. As another poster Bigfoot correctly noted "Once Lincoln made the war about slavery. A non-slave country such as England could no longer morally supply military arms to the Confederacy. And that's what the Emancipation Proclamation was really truly all about. THAT'S the only reason that Lincoln brought the slavery issue to the forefront of the war. That was almost 2 years after the War of Northern Aggression went hot."
This of course destroyed the Northern bankers and elites business model but they didn't want to lose the war since the confederate army was close the Washington. Self preservation and all costs. So that is why the Emaciation Proclamation was in 1863 years after the war started. This action grew the ranks of the union army as there was low moral among the army over the losses to date. Anyway, they were bankrupting the south for year leading up to the war and during the war as well. If you go to Gettysburg and visit the museum you can clearly see how poor the South was at the battle. Just compare the uniforms and gear of the Union to the Confederate army and you see the toll the north took on impoverishing the south through legislative policies and economic favoritism towards the North. Succession of the southern states was about controlling their economic outlook not slavery although slavery clearly allowed them to lower costs but for the 99% that didn't won slaves, the idea of having a say in their future rather than to be dictated to by North control Washington was their motivation to fight. They gambled on themselves and who wouldn't.
So the war was as much about slavery as it was about cheap raw materials and huge profit margins. Slavery made the production and delivery of raw materials to Northern factories cheap to enhance profits. Slave = cheap labor. It was not a moral issue but like all wars, minions need a reason to fight and morality plays better to the poor war victims than increase profits for rich elites.
Today these elites are faced with a similar situation. One that may have them burning it all to the ground rather than lose. Today there is no North or South only their victims of whom more are awakening daily to the greed, debauchery and corruption that is their representatives in Washington.
Edited
Last edited:
In another video you could hear better his answer. He told her, I am not running for president.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
Is Nikki Available .. i got 2 more 
and the night is young ..
and the night is young ..
Bigfoot
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Yeah, that was kind of weird, considering the fact that she is there to sell her product. She is there to promote her platform.
Who cares what some Joe Shmoe in the audience opinion is, he's not the one running for the Presidency of the United States.
She's an establishment swampy asshole.
I missed that, I also missed the point of the question and its relevance to her running for POTUS...American History IS important, but such a subjective and question that opens the door to a massive answer seems out of place to me, perhaps I missed the point of it?