Apparently Nikki was asked the same question in 2010 and once again gave a similarly slippery answer, stating that “one side was fighting for tradition and one side was fighting for change.” She’s a spineless opportunist and doesn’t have what it takes to lead the most powerful nation on earth. She will collapse the first time there is a crisis since there is no spine to hold her up.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8QGyEAb/

God help us if any republicans take office

Haley is a lying sack of crap

Anyone want to live in Haley kingdom or DeSantis land ?

Bread lines are coming you think things are expensive now hahaha MAGA Republicans are idiots

Ever since Trump branded her as “bird brain” I think she looks like a bird with confusion in her eyes.

No chance

So freedom to what....own slaves?

The GOP candidates are twisting themselves into knots trying to avoid facts about our country's past to the point of absurdity.

Let’s not forget Ronnie has been busy wiping mentions of slavery from school curriculums

The irony

Desantis' "not difficult to acknowledge the role slavery played in the whole Civil War"

This is evasive, really

"
The best answer to Ron DeSantis’ interpretation of the causes of the Civil War emerged from a November 2022 article in The New York Times describing his experience as a faculty member at a prep school northwest of Atlanta. Following his graduation from Yale, he spent a year at the Darlington School in Rome, Georgia, teaching American history, coaching and doing dorm duty, before heading off to Harvard Law School.

“The Civil War was not about slavery,” his Darlington students quoted him as saying, “it was about two competing economic systems,” an industrial North squaring off against an agrarian South. Slavery was a “business,” and the free labor North and the slave South were, in essence, fighting over differing definitions of what constituted “property.” In short, young Ron DeSantis was offering up an economic explanation for the coming of the Civil War. The racial content of the South’s slave system was not the key; it was the slave’s legal definition as chattel property that was the critical variable."
-Tampa Bay Times, May 27, 2023

FWIW in my Minnesota high school we were of course taught about competing economic systems--ag vs industrial and so on. But that was a subtext to slavery as the cause. We understood that.

Granted, Haley made it really easy to come up with a better answer to the last question on the history final. If a scoring rubric was used, Desantis would get a 1 out of 5 maybe, instead of a fat red 0 for not even having read the chapter

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]As another poster pointed out, Haley was the first governor of SC to remove the confederate flag from the statehouse. Obviously she is on the right side of history, and anyone with half a brain would acknowledge that.[/quote]

It was a temporary moment in time after a white punk had murdered black church ladies in Charleston when changing the state flag had majority support in South Carolina if a Republican did it. She had permission from her donors to pretend to give a shit, at least symbolically. [/quote]

Whatever she did with the flag does not give her a free pass on any other question related to the Civil War, the history of slavery and its consequences, or the fact that right now in connection with Trump's candidacy we are in effect re-litigating the unanswered questions about the 14th Amendment (besides questions of presidential civil and criminal immunity and so on), what powers the executive and states have regarding elections, and a whole lot of other Civil War baggage. In many respects, it is still 1865 in the US.

Paragraph 1 of the SC Articles of Secesson:
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

The document goes on to claim that the growing hostility of non-slaveholding states, and actions of the federal government regarding slavery, were sufficient as to defeat the purpose of the Constitution altogether.

There was no guaranty that slavery would be allowed in perpetuity.

"Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights."--but SC itself declares it assented to the Constitution ONLY after it was amended to begin with.

The first person I ever in my life heard claim that the Civil War was not about slavery was an AA friend of mine (who was at the time a regional Tea Party Chair and belonged to a number of like-minded organizations). I had never looked up the secession documents. Sorry, Nikki, when "slaveholding" is in paragraph 1 and all the "how government operates" topics they raised were slavery-related.

Of course, if you can sideline enough black voters, that might work well for her.

She discussed SS changes - the 3rd rail of politics. Now her Civil gaff. I’m republican want a female president, but I’m not comfortable with her

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it was a trick question, LOL

Okay so I guess she will have a historically accurate answer if asked the same question again?

Reporters, this is really, really easy: “So Governor Haley, just to clarify, do you believe the Civil War was fought over slavery?”

Even better, "do you acknowledge that South Carolina started the Civil War so that the white people of the state could continue to own other people?"

This would be false, as the vast majority of whites didn't own any slaves and that, even more telling, some blacks did.

Some of you are as ignorant as Haley herself.

The only South Carolinians that mattered or had any kind of voice or influence in 1860 were the very wealthy - who owned slaves.

Absolutely not true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it was a trick question, LOL

Okay so I guess she will have a historically accurate answer if asked the same question again?

Reporters, this is really, really easy: “So Governor Haley, just to clarify, do you believe the Civil War was fought over slavery?”

Even better, "do you acknowledge that South Carolina started the Civil War so that the white people of the state could continue to own other people?"

This would be false, as the vast majority of whites didn't own any slaves and that, even more telling, some blacks did.

Some of you are as ignorant as Haley herself.

The only South Carolinians that mattered or had any kind of voice or influence in 1860 were the very wealthy - who owned slaves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it was a trick question, LOL

Okay so I guess she will have a historically accurate answer if asked the same question again?

Reporters, this is really, really easy: “So Governor Haley, just to clarify, do you believe the Civil War was fought over slavery?”

Even better, "do you acknowledge that South Carolina started the Civil War so that the white people of the state could continue to own other people?"

This would be false, as the vast majority of whites didn't own any slaves and that, even more telling, some blacks did.

Some of you are as ignorant as Haley herself.

Starting with yourself: "The expansion of slavery throughout the state led to the full maturity of the slave society in South Carolina. By 1860, 45.8 percent of white families in the state owned slaves, giving the state one of the highest percentages of slaveholders in the country." Hiding behind the fact that, typically, only the male head of household held legal ownership of slaves on a plantation or within a home is disingenuous at its height. Wives and children most certainly benefited from that ownership. Stop pretending otherwise. https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/slavery/

(Many claim that Southern wives were the property of their husbands prior to the Civil War, no different from slaves. That is a legal fiction. To be clear, Southern wives inherited, bought, and sold slaves. White women were not the passive bystanders that white historians and feminists make them out to be. It was not uncommon for Southern girls to receive slaves as Christmas gifts or upon their 16th or 21st birthday. Southern women pursued legal action to maintain ownership of their slaves upon marriage, an direct challenge to the legal doctrine of coverture that made a wife's property those of her husband. Southern courts routinely ruled in favor of wives, protecting their ownership over their slaves. An historian at UC Berkeley, Stephanie Jones-Rogers, wrote a book on the subject, They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South -- not that you will read it.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As another poster pointed out, Haley was the first governor of SC to remove the confederate flag from the statehouse. Obviously she is on the right side of history, and anyone with half a brain would acknowledge that.

She understands the republican base quite well. She’s not going to say something they don’t want to hear.

This is the main issue I have with Haley: she will say/do what she needs to to advance politically—she lacks a spine and a core set of beliefs. If she were ever to be elected president, how would she be able to control the extreme right wing of her party?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it was a trick question, LOL

Okay so I guess she will have a historically accurate answer if asked the same question again?

Reporters, this is really, really easy: “So Governor Haley, just to clarify, do you believe the Civil War was fought over slavery?”

Even better, "do you acknowledge that South Carolina started the Civil War so that the white people of the state could continue to own other people?"

This would be false, as the vast majority of whites didn't own any slaves and that, even more telling, some blacks did.

Some of you are as ignorant as Haley herself.

Dp- ☝️this is the problem

☝️this is the problem

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it was a trick question, LOL

Okay so I guess she will have a historically accurate answer if asked the same question again?

Reporters, this is really, really easy: “So Governor Haley, just to clarify, do you believe the Civil War was fought over slavery?”

Even better, "do you acknowledge that South Carolina started the Civil War so that the white people of the state could continue to own other people?"

This would be false, as the vast majority of whites didn't own any slaves and that, even more telling, some blacks did.

Some of you are as ignorant as Haley herself.

Dp- ☝️this is the problem