View Full Version : Learn me on Nikki Haley
Last night's debate was my first real exposure to her, and I thought she came off very well. Looking at her on the issues, nothing jumps out at me as why she'd be disliked (1) yet I know she's not well liked in these parts. What's her deal? RINO voting record? Other? On guns:
Secure schools with onsite police, not gun-free zones. (Jun 2023)
I don't trust government to deal with red flag laws. (Jun 2023)
Expanded concealed carry rights to bars and restaurants. (May 2023)
Make concealed weapons permits easier. (Nov 2010)
Founding fathers gave us the absolute right to bear arms. (May 2010)
(1) https://www.ontheissues.org/Nikki_Haley.htm
She is or was pretty friendly to the guys at PTR. I haven't seen that many elected folks openly enjoying modern rifle stuff other than Rick Perry with LaRue.
Politico has 50 points in a time line. Doesn't tell a whole lot other than she seems smart and well balanced in her interactions. The last point is interesting.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/14/nikki-haley-2024-bio-what-you-need-to-know-00082742
Politico has 50 points in a time line. Doesn't tell a whole lot other than she seems smart and well balanced in her interactions. The last point is interesting.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/14/nikki-haley-2024-bio-what-you-need-to-know-00082742
Good read, thanx. From the debate, the link I posted, and article you posted, we could do a lot worse. She didn't jump on the Trump train seems to be her worst offense that put her in the dog house. From the article you posted, she does come off as talking out both sides of her mouth when it comes to DJT. I can see some might dismiss her as a RINO but that does not seem to be the case as far as i can tell. I didn't know she was a first gen Indian immigrant like Vivek.
Living in an adjacent state I've watched her since she became governor.
The Nikki you saw last night was pretty much how she's been as governor and as UN ambassador.
It would not surprise me if she overtook DeSantes as she's not as alienating to Trump supporters. (Even if I applaud some of RDS positions)
She has been my top pick since Trump was President. Not that she would do everything like, but she would do a good job.
Then you get a guy like Vivek R on the Shawn Ryan Show who is, quite frankly, nuts. I like what he says, but it isn’t going to happen, might not even be a good idea, and won’t help him get elected.
*I haven’t watched the debate
I like what he says, but it isn’t going to happen, might not even be a good idea, and won’t help him get elected.
Exactly, VR is a smart guy. He can hold a lot of facts in his head. When C. Noir asked him about machine gun ownership. All he said was sure it's constitutional. Well that's why some people on this forum have machine guns. He didn't really say anything. Trump was sort of the same way. He would say "They are going to take your guns". Well ok, that's a true statement but he also helped to open that pathway by pushing the bumpstock ban that rolled into the pistol brace ban. He never did anything specific as an offense move to restore 2A rights that have been taken away over the decades past. VR is simply much faster and smoother with his words.
Grandpa can I have a machinegun? Sure sonny, I had one in the war. Problem is Momma is not buying sonny a machinegun no matter what Grandpa says.
I would probably vote for Nikki Haley. She seems level headed enough. Problem is I would not trust her to protect the 2A ---especially--- when her maternal instincts kick in as some reaction to another Liberal push resulting from another incident. I also would not trust that she would actually fight to restore rights by pushing back at ATF. Maybe she could appoint VR to head the ATF and he will let us all have newly manufactured machineguns.
I could see DeSantis taking on the ATF --maybe-- but he has to get elected first which may not be that easy.
hotbiggun42
08-24-23, 16:28
Haley blamed Trump for the deadly Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and suggested that the GOP would move on without him.
“I think he’s going to find himself further and further isolated,” Haley told Politico the week after the attack. “I think he’s lost any sort of political viability he was going to have… He’s not going to run for federal office again… I don’t think he’s going to be in the picture. … I don’t think he can. He’s fallen so far.”
“We need to acknowledge he let us down,”
She also slammed his plan to build a border wall and his other positions on immigration. “Republicans need to remember that the fabric of America came from these legal immigrants,” Haley, the daughter of Indian immigrants,
She is a RINO. No thanks
My concerns about Haley are the same concerns I have about everyone up there (including Vivek). How vulnerable are they to the Deep State? Vivek definitely struck a nerve with his Lockheed/Raytheon BoD comment, so there may be a kernel of truth there?
The problem as I see it is that the only candidate who’s no longer under vulnerable to the sway of the DS, is the guy who’s most likely to give the DS the exact ammo they need to torpedo him. :(
Haley blamed Trump for the deadly Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and suggested that the GOP would move on without him.
“I think he’s going to find himself further and further isolated,” Haley told Politico the week after the attack. “I think he’s lost any sort of political viability he was going to have… He’s not going to run for federal office again… I don’t think he’s going to be in the picture. … I don’t think he can. He’s fallen so far.”
“We need to acknowledge he let us down,”
She also slammed his plan to build a border wall and his other positions on immigration. “Republicans need to remember that the fabric of America came from these legal immigrants,” Haley, the daughter of Indian immigrants,
She is a RINO. No thanks
Not following for/not always following/drinking the MAGA Koolaid does not = RINO. Nothing there makes her a RINO per se, just not someone willing to back/support the orange guy under any and all circumstances, which suggests she's a self thinker vs party line zombie. That's OK by me.
Not following for/not always following/drinking the MAGA Koolaid does not = RINO. Nothing there makes her a RINO per se, just not someone willing to back/support the orange guy under any and all circumstances, which suggests she's a self thinker vs party line zombie. That's OK by me.
Actually, her immigration position and Russia/Ukraine position do put her solidly in RINO territory. I don’t think she’s fully compromised, but she’s not doing much of anything to prove she wouldn’t be.
Not following for/not always following/drinking the MAGA Koolaid does not = RINO. Nothing there makes her a RINO per se, just not someone willing to back/support the orange guy under any and all circumstances, which suggests she's a self thinker vs party line zombie. That's OK by me.Everyone needs to listen to her comments in the debate and otherwise about Trump. What I hear:
1) he is going to face huge challenges getting elected based on overall popularity and hatred from certain circles including certain GOP
2) she admired him and felt it was an honor to serve as ambassador
3) she agreed with the majority of his platform, positions, and actions
4) there were some she didn't agree with and feels passionately about them. This is where January 6th topics come up, etc.
Those are not the statements of a RINO, who are pretty consistently never trumpers. I really see the two interchangeably now. Even some of his GOP fans started as never trumpers and were rinos then and rinos now.
My gut tells me DeSantes would most govern the way I would prefer. But I think he's got some electability issues based on the fights that he's been picking in Florida in his campaign performance. (Though I would admit that he did better last night though still stumbled some)
I think Haley has more mainstream appeal, would attract some of the women vote, and is probably more electable.
VR is probably too much of an outsider unless lightning strikes again. But I wouldn't feel bad with him in control and I largely agree with his platform if not every statement he's ever made.
But even his 9/11 statements are misinterpreted and turned into hyperbole. What he said is that the commission and the FBI lied to the American people, and we know that to be the case. The Bush presidency and family ran interference for saudioperatives. You look up the specifics of "Bandar Bush" and it'll make your hair curl.
So I think we could do worse with Haley although I'd probably prefer RDS if he could get elected.
The Dumb Gun Collector
08-24-23, 18:01
I like her. She and Pence seem like grown ups.
ODgreenpizza
08-24-23, 18:15
I like her. She and Pence seem like grown ups.
Gubernatorial experience probably has something to do with that.
Haley blamed Trump for the deadly Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and suggested that the GOP would move on without him.
“I think he’s going to find himself further and further isolated,” Haley told Politico the week after the attack. “I think he’s lost any sort of political viability he was going to have… He’s not going to run for federal office again… I don’t think he’s going to be in the picture. … I don’t think he can. He’s fallen so far.”
“We need to acknowledge he let us down,”
She also slammed his plan to build a border wall and his other positions on immigration. “Republicans need to remember that the fabric of America came from these legal immigrants,” Haley, the daughter of Indian immigrants,
She is a RINO. No thanks
Well, some of us recognize that everything you quoted above is actually right. Lol
Re: 1/6 if the tables were turned Trump would have said Haley should have been hung. The fact that she just said he's unelectable is pretty benign.
I wouldn't say she's a RINO. I think she likes to win. It worries me that anyone would back Mitt R. but her doing so kept him voting mostly with R. It's up to voters to replace him and they are not doing so. That means the other Rs have to work with him.
I also think she's far above Pence in context of being POTUS
I like her. She and Pence seem like grown ups.
Pence seems more like grown stale.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-25-23, 01:44
Pence seems more like grown stale.
Pence was born stale, that's his appeal. He's a human crouton. It's not that I like him, but one of the few times I liked V is when he took on Pence and his rosy outlook in the US. Pence is wrong about it being all good in the US. We are at a very dangerous time, if he can't see that he isn't fit for the job.
ChattanoogaPhil
08-25-23, 07:01
I don't trust her. She's demonstrated a willingness to throw America's service, sacrifice and heritage under the bus, and those who honor it, for political expediency. And she's fond of chiming in with the Left smearing others as haters and racists if she thinks it serves her.
A couple examples...
Haley supported removal of the Confederate flag after the Dylann Roof shooting: “But you know people saw it as service, and sacrifice and heritage – but once he [Dylan Roof] did that, there was no way to overcome it.” Fast forward to today... "Today’s outrage culture does not allow any gestures to the other side. It demands that we declare winners and losers. Sadly, I’m not sure that in today’s political climate we would have been able to remove the flag.”
Haley smears protesters regarding tearing down statues: "The Charlottesville marchers' intention was to create division and hate, just like the Charleston killer."
Haley smears Trump with the KKK: “I will not stop until we fight a man that chooses not to disavow the KKK,” Haley continued. “That is not a part of our party, that is not who we want as president. We will not allow that in our country.”
----------
Who or what will be Haley's future 'gestures' to the 'other side', and targets for smear? Maybe you.
She bends over to the left every time she can........ No spine and plays WOKE Games
The story of Nikki Haley and the Confederate flag
Nikki Haley formally launched her campaign for president on Wednesday, a day after announcing it via video. The former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador (who earned strong bipartisan marks for her performance in that role) is now the second major declared candidate for 2024, joining Donald Trump in the race.
In 2015, Haley put herself on the national political map with her response to a racist mass killing at a historically Black church in Charleston, in which she called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the State House grounds. The state soon did so, with legislators voting in favor of the move by overwhelming margins, despite previous polls that showed strong public support for the flag remaining there.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/15/nikki-haley-confederate-flag-timeline/
hotbiggun42
08-25-23, 15:21
Not following for/not always following/drinking the MAGA Koolaid does not = RINO. Nothing there makes her a RINO per se, just not someone willing to back/support the orange guy under any and all circumstances, which suggests she's a self thinker vs party line zombie. That's OK by me.
I suppose, but why is she drinking the "deadly january 6th" koolaid being served by the democrats. I wouldnt consider that a self thinker.
I suppose, but why is she drinking the "deadly january 6th" koolaid being served by the democrats. I wouldnt consider that a self thinker.
Lindsey Graham seems to do similar. One minute he's screaming at Liberals then the next he's rubbing elbows with them. Maybe it's something in the water in SC. These are Politicians, one can't hope for too much.
Lindsey Graham seems to do similar. One minute he's screaming at Liberals then the next he's rubbing elbows with them. Maybe it's something in the water in SC. These are Politicians, one can't hope for too much.
They do seem to love them some Deep State schlong gobbling, don't they. :(
ODgreenpizza
08-25-23, 16:09
She bends over to the left every time she can........ No spine and plays WOKE Games
Everyone knows Pres. Trump and the Electorate of South Carolina are famous for their love of repeatedly electing and appointing woke and spineless individuals. It didn't take any spine at all for a native South Carolinian to publicly refuse to genuflect at the altar of a failed CSA ideology. :rolleyes:
The Dumb Gun Collector
08-25-23, 17:17
Why do people still keep taking the chump bait on the confederate flag? Let it go, jeeze.
Why do people still keep taking the chump bait on the confederate flag? Let it go, jeeze.My family is from the south, I was born and raised in the north and couldn't care any less about the confederate flag but did hate to see the liberals win in its removal.
To clarify, first a flag, then.........., then...........
You get the point.
The Dumb Gun Collector
08-25-23, 17:41
I was born and remain in GA. That flag has been nothing but a hassle for white southerners.
I agree with you about the instinct to automatically oppose what the liberals want. But I rather spend my energy elsewhere.
hotbiggun42
08-25-23, 17:44
Shes a global warming nut
The Dumb Gun Collector
08-25-23, 18:08
She seems pretty rational..
In 2014, while serving as governor of South Carolina, Haley lambasted President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to curb greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, as an example of Washington “sending us backwards.” The plan has been blocked by the Supreme Court and the power sector has already met its requirements, but at the time Haley argued that the requirement would raise utility rates and cost the state jobs.
In 2017, during her time as U.N. ambassador, Haley helped orchestrate Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, which seeks to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.
And in a 2020 video released by her advocacy group Stand for America, Haley declared that “man-made climate change is real, but liberal ideas would cost trillions and destroy our economy.” She specifically slammed the Green New Deal, the liberal proposal to wean the country off fossil fuels in a decade, as a “bad idea.”
Instead, Haley voiced support for sucking carbon dioxide from the air, both by installing carbon-capture technology at polluting industrial facilities and planting more trees, which sequester carbon through photosynthesis.
ChattanoogaPhil
08-25-23, 18:15
To clarify, first a flag, then.........., then...........
You get the point.
You mean like tearing down hundreds of statues… ordering the renaming of military bases… nah, never gonna happen.
She seems pretty rational..
In 2014, while serving as governor of South Carolina, Haley lambasted President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to curb greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, as an example of Washington “sending us backwards.” The plan has been blocked by the Supreme Court and the power sector has already met its requirements, but at the time Haley argued that the requirement would raise utility rates and cost the state jobs.
In 2017, during her time as U.N. ambassador, Haley helped orchestrate Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, which seeks to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.
And in a 2020 video released by her advocacy group Stand for America, Haley declared that “man-made climate change is real, but liberal ideas would cost trillions and destroy our economy.” She specifically slammed the Green New Deal, the liberal proposal to wean the country off fossil fuels in a decade, as a “bad idea.”
Instead, Haley voiced support for sucking carbon dioxide from the air, both by installing carbon-capture technology at polluting industrial facilities and planting more trees, which sequester carbon through photosynthesis.
The only reason she wants to dismantle the green weenies, is because she wants more money to spend on warmongering across the globe. She proved that Wednesday night! :(
I was born and remain in GA. That flag has been nothing but a hassle for white southerners.
I agree with you about the instinct to automatically oppose what the liberals want. But I rather spend my energy elsewhere.
I had Family on both sides..... The Good Guys lost...... If you do not know that then you are part of the problem.
I had Family on both sides..... The Good Guys lost...... If you do not know that then you are part of the problem.
Most of my family fought for the North. I was brainwashed for a very long time into thinking the good guys won.
You are 100% correct, the good guys lost.
You are also spot on regarding Nikki Haley.
I’ll fight, but will no longer vote in this corrupt system.
The Dumb Gun Collector
08-25-23, 22:56
I had Family on both sides..... The Good Guys lost...... If you do not know that then you are part of the problem.
If you are saying that the Confederate States of America were the good guys then yes, gladly sign me up for being part of the problem. I am tired so I assume I am misreading this.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-26-23, 00:20
I don't know about the 'good guys'. That's like saying that the NAZI were the 'good guys' versus the Communists, you have to just overlook the Holocaust. I guess you can fall back on the 'states rights' argument, but frankly 'states rights' takes a back-seat to human rights. I don't see many people here wanting to take up arms to protect California's right as a state to take away firearms...
ViniVidivici
08-26-23, 00:36
I had Family on both sides..... The Good Guys lost...... If you do not know that then you are part of the problem.
Amen to that.
I had Family on both sides..... The Good Guys lost...... If you do not know that then you are part of the problem.
I think there were plenty of bad guys to go around, both sides. The important thing is we killed LOTS of people and didn't solve most of the problems.
Shes a global warming nut
Nonsense.
https://www.ontheissues.org/nikki_haley.htm#Energy_+_Oil
We're not the problem; China and India are the problem. (Jun 2023)
Strongly advocated for withdrawing from Paris climate accord. (May 2023)
Socialist Democrats want to ban gas powered cars, gas stoves. (Mar 2023)
Paris climate agreement cost US too many jobs. (Jun 2017)
Open the Savannah River Site nuclear reactor fuel project. (May 2014)
Not now, not ever, support raising the gas tax. (Jan 2013)
Supports off-shore drilling near South Carolina coast. (Jun 2010)
Sued Obama's EPA over heavy-handed regulatory burdens. (May 2023)
Re-open Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste. (Apr 2012)
I had Family on both sides..... The Good Guys lost...... If you do not know that then you are part of the problem.
What made them the good guys? The were certainly on the wrong side of the slavery issue, even if many (most?) in the north didn't really care about it either.
Good lord, some of the responses here! :eek:
My family is from the south, I was born and raised in the north and couldn't care any less about the confederate flag but did hate to see the liberals win in its removal.
To clarify, first a flag, then.........., then...........
You get the point.
Yeah, I certainly get the point. For those that don't know, Richmond used to be known as "The city of Monuments". Tourist attraction, VA Museum of Fine Arts, Confederate Museum, many other attractions all within a short walk of Monument Ave. Not only the monuments but beautiful homes. In fact the land was, possibly still is about the most expensive residential land per sq. ft. in the region.
So here is what a black rookie mayor and white governor / doctor that is perfectly fine with what amounts to an after birth abortion. He got caught in Black Face in his youth and pretty much fully compromised after that but was a full on ***hole prior.
So possibly not in the article but it became a BLM, Antifa, p**s on the cops affair.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/09/richmond-mayor-monuments-392706
I'm no flag waiving Confederate History buff but that was insane. All they had to do was add more monuments. Monument Avenue is divided by a large median. There is a 5 mile stretch that could have been home to more monuments, more history. Arthur Ash is located in a small roundabout. Never had a problem until after the BLM Antifa ordeal then it was somewhat defaced. It would not surprise me to know they defaced it as well in attempt to create more division.
Regarding the SC flag. It is stored at that location it was removed from. Every year on the date it was removed they have a ceremony and raise it again. From what I understand there is a Liberal loon that tries to shout over the ceremony with a bull horn.
hotbiggun42
08-26-23, 14:38
Lincoln did trample on states rights and used powers not granted to him under the Constitution but the south, under democrat rule did not free the slaves and would not free the slaves until forced to do so,
We can sit back and ponder the merits of the civil war but it was different times with a different set of moral values
One thing is certain the democrat party should have been abolished along with the Confederate flag. The Democrats still seperate whites from blacks in order to maintain their power.
ChattanoogaPhil
08-26-23, 15:23
Boys boys... we need to understand the importance of providing 'gestures' to 'the other side'
Let it go... jeez
https://i.imgur.com/5xp3Fmd.jpg
Averageman
08-27-23, 10:18
Lincoln did trample on states rights and used powers not granted to him under the Constitution but the south, under democrat rule did not free the slaves and would not free the slaves until forced to do so,
We can sit back and ponder the merits of the civil war but it was different times with a different set of moral values
One thing is certain the democrat party should have been abolished along with the Confederate flag. The Democrats still seperate whites from blacks in order to maintain their power.
Here's the thing, if it weren't made an issue Slavery wouldn't have been an issue for the South. Slavery was slowly becomming an economic burden.
Eli Whitney had in one fell swoop eliminated the need for 50% of slave labor.
So why then would the Northern States demand that the South give up their Slaves, yet be unwilling to free their own Slaves? (Yes Northern States maintained Slavery until after the Civil War.)
I think Gentlemen that, on a grand scale, we were talking economic dominence. The North wanted firm controls on southern agriculture production and War was a way to achieve that.
I also think below that "Grand Scale" it was made about freedom and slavery to make it more palatable for those of us mortals to throw ourselves on a funeral pyre so the rich got richer.
The burden of Slavery then turned in to reconstruction, which sucked the Life out of the South for seventy five years. Helping neither the former Slave or Confederate Solider and hurting folks as far North as Kentucky, a former Union State.
Theft in the name of Reconstruction, not freeing the Slaves was the goal of the Civil War.
Here's the thing, if it weren't made an issue Slavery wouldn't have been an issue for the South. Slavery was slowly becomming an economic burden.
Eli Whitney had in one fell swoop eliminated the need for 50% of slave labor.
So why then would the Northern States demand that the South give up their Slaves, yet be unwilling to free their own Slaves? (Yes Northern States maintained Slavery until after the Civil War.)
I think Gentlemen that, on a grand scale, we were talking economic dominence. The North wanted firm controls on southern agriculture production and War was a way to achieve that.
I also think below that "Grand Scale" it was made about freedom and slavery to make it more palatable for those of us mortals to throw ourselves on a funeral pyre so the rich got richer.
The burden of Slavery then turned in to reconstruction, which sucked the Life out of the South for seventy five years. Helping neither the former Slave or Confederate Solider and hurting folks as far North as Kentucky, a former Union State.
Theft in the name of Reconstruction, not freeing the Slaves was the goal of the Civil War.
Let them research it themselves. If you spoon feed, they will only argue with you from a brainwashed or ignorant position.
Here's the thing, if it weren't made an issue Slavery wouldn't have been an issue for the South. Slavery was slowly becomming an economic burden.
Eli Whitney had in one fell swoop eliminated the need for 50% of slave labor.
So why then would the Northern States demand that the South give up their Slaves, yet be unwilling to free their own Slaves? (Yes Northern States maintained Slavery until after the Civil War.)
I think Gentlemen that, on a grand scale, we were talking economic dominence. The North wanted firm controls on southern agriculture production and War was a way to achieve that.
I also think below that "Grand Scale" it was made about freedom and slavery to make it more palatable for those of us mortals to throw ourselves on a funeral pyre so the rich got richer.
The burden of Slavery then turned in to reconstruction, which sucked the Life out of the South for seventy five years. Helping neither the former Slave or Confederate Solider and hurting folks as far North as Kentucky, a former Union State.
Theft in the name of Reconstruction, not freeing the Slaves was the goal of the Civil War.
War is always ultimately about resources, territory, $ and power for a small % of people. You must hide that reality behind something else to get people to kill and die in large numbers.
Averageman
08-27-23, 10:37
War is always ultimately about resources, territory, $ and power for a small % of people. You must hide that reality behind something else to get people to kill and die in large numbers.
Well they've certainly gotten good at that haven't they?
Well they've certainly gotten good at that haven't they?
It's been SOP since at least Roman times, so thousands of years at a minimum to perfect it.
The Dumb Gun Collector
08-27-23, 15:30
So why did the South "really" secede? Because they sure seemed to think it was about slavery...At first I was highlighting stuff but after a while I gave up because it is all about slavery. It's about slavery. They wanted to keep slaves, and that was coming to an end. This wasn't about constitutional theory...It was about preserving an aborhrent institution that they had based their economy on. The South broke away to keep their slaves. Maybe the people who wrote the declaration of causes for secession fro South Carolina didn't know as much about their own motivations as you do but I kindly doubt it...
Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
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.
And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.
The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.
If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
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.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860
Averageman
08-27-23, 16:10
So why did the South "really" secede? Because they sure seemed to think it was about slavery...At first I was highlighting stuff but after a while I gave up because it is all about slavery. It's about slavery. They wanted to keep slaves, and that was coming to an end. This wasn't about constitutional theory...It was about preserving an abhorrent institution that they had based their economy on. The South broke away to keep their slaves. Maybe the people who wrote the declaration of causes for secession for South Carolina didn't know as much about their own motivations as you do but I kindly doubt it...
Hmmm, but what about the Northern Slaves that were still in Bondage?
I'm pretty sure that the coming Industrialization I.E. the Cotton Gin was making all of that null and void. The need for Slaves and Slavery was quickly comning to an end.
The idea that Southerners were all slave owners was false, the idea that the Northern States gave a damn about the Negro was also false. If it were true and the Negro was to be embraced as a fellow Citizen, then why did they have to wait so long to legally Vote, share a Water Fountain or Public Toilet?
I'm not 100% sure, but I'm willing to bet, to the Big Money folks it was all about money and power. Once they started an immoral war it was only a matter of time until they all cashed in.
Your just illustraiting why they had the legal right to leave the Union.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-27-23, 17:05
Considering the failure of reconstruction in the rise of Jim Crow laws after the Civil War, the south probably would’ve been better off just agreeing that slavery be abolished, and just skipping to the postbellum, political and social constructions.
I’m just responding to the multiple comments about the cotton gin reducing the need for slaves. Since grade school, I have understood the exact opposite of that assumption.
The cotton gin made cotton more profitable but does help planting or picking cotton…the new efficiency led to more profit led to wanting larger cotton crops led to reversing the trend toward a reduction in slavery. Literally the opposite of what has been suggested here.
Averageman
08-27-23, 19:15
I’m just responding to the multiple comments about the cotton gin reducing the need for slaves. Since grade school, I have understood the exact opposite of that assumption.
The cotton gin made cotton more profitable but does help planting or picking cotton…the new efficiency led to more profit led to wanting larger cotton crops led to reversing the trend toward a reduction in slavery. Literally the opposite of what has been suggested here.
The Cotton Gin combed the cotton and removed plant debris and seeds. Seeds of course were collected for next year.
Now if Slaves were used to manually comb the cotton then that's a tremendous amount of intense labor. Now would the savings on time and labor cause a farmer to grow more, of course it would, but by the time of the Civil War importation of Slaves was abolished.
So importing Slaves is no longer viable, Land Costs Money and it takes Nine Months to make a human and at least 6-7 years before they can labor at much.
The numbers just don't work except for maybe one half of one percent of the Souths Citizens.
So, I'm wondering where all these Slaves would come from?
I would guess your "Average" Southern Farmer grew an inexpensive crop like Tobacco and with four or five sons for labor so he could get by.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.