Nikki Haley’s Plant
The Civil War has been over for 158 years, but as Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley discovered this week, we’re still fighting it.
At a New Hampshire town hall on Wednesday, an attendee asked Haley what the cause of the Civil War was. “I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run—the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do,” she answered. (By the way, I’ve seen that punctuated by reporters in several ways, each affecting the meaning in a slightly different way.)
The episode has been extensively hashed over, so won’t do so further here. But what befuddled me more than Haley’s initial nonanswer was her attempt at damage control. She blamed the question on a “Democratic plant.”
On one level, that’s like calling someone “poopyhead” because that person asked you a question you didn’t like. Haley looked foolish and so, no, you’re foolish. And you’re smelly. And nobody likes you. Nah ne nah ne boo boo!
But the fact that Haley was so blind-sided struck me as odd. Haley is the South Carolina governor who (under extreme political pressure) removed the Confederate flag from the state capitol. She is well-versed in matters of race, Civil War, and slavery. It’s not like she hasn’t had to address such matters before, and she’s had to do it amidst a storm of angry emotions. Wednesday’s town hall was a much cooler environment for discussing a topic she’s had to discuss before.
On a more telling level, though, her attempt to scapegoat a “Democratic plant” for her own mess—with no evidence, no less—suggests a belief that members of the party of Lincoln would not be interested in talking about slavery in the first place. “Slavery” would, indeed, have been the correct answer to the question, but it was an answer Haley seemed to assume her Republican audience (or at least part of it) didn’t want to hear. By her characterization, only the Democrats, the bad guys, the enemy, would want to talk about such a thing—and they would only try to do so to play “gotcha.”
Haley blatantly politicized the identity of the questioner as an attempt to deflect. She wanted to give people the easy cognitive shortcut to dismiss the whole affair by painting it all as partisan.
This country is in dire need of better civics education. It also needs a better sense of its own history. Isn’t that one of the reasons we’re supposed to study history? Asking a fundamental question about that history shouldn’t be a Democratic or Republican thing. If we are to understand what it means to be Americans, then we all need to be free to ask questions about who we are and how we got here and what it all means.
And we also need to be honest with each other about the answers. Even if those answers are uncomfortable, they offer an opportunity for dialogue and understanding. Right now, too many Americans don’t want to hear what they don’t want to hear, and we’re all worse off for it.
“too many Americans don’t want to hear what they don’t want to hear”
Dude, and you are Exhibit A.
But you are right, it is still being fought. And the next one is likely “emerging” before our eyes. Too many of the signs and symptoms are there.
I certainly don’t have time for any Lost Cause nonsense, if that’s what you mean. I prefer my history to be fact-based.
I think predictions of another civil war are overblown. There do seem to be some folks on the far right who seem almost eager for it, but if everyone took a deep breath, I think they’d see they’re excited over a whole lot of nothing.
“I prefer my history to be fact-based.”
If you prefer it that way, why don’t you yourself practice it?
“I certainly don’t have time for any Lost Cause nonsense”
What exactly is “Lost cause nonsense”? Can you even define it? So far, reading a lot of what’s been written, it seems to be defined as “facts that show Confederate victories, anything that reflects positively on Confederate troops and their military service, anything that portrays Union troops as anything but angels and perfect human beings, and anything that doesn’t portray the Confederate government/cause/actions as evil”. I served as a police detective for years, it was my job to find facts, objectively. I didn’t go into it thinking “I’m going to ignore any evidence that might show the suspect in a good or bad light, and I’m not going to testify in court in any way other than showing the defendant as evil or good, whichever I prefer at the moment.” From what I’ve seen so far, you’re not exactly a defender and practitioner of fact-finding in an objective way.
“I think predictions of another civil war are overblown. There do seem to be some folks on the far right who seem almost eager for it, but if everyone took a deep breath, I think they’d see they’re excited over a whole lot of nothing.”
As if no one in the world has “taken a deep breath”. As if everyone who disagrees with you is “breathless”. Anyway, if you were a historian you would know that the vast majority of countries in the world have had multiple civil wars and other internal conflicts. Our closest relative and parent, England, has had many. I lived in Spain for years, it has had many. I grew up in South America, would you like to know how many civil wars, revolutions and internal serious conflicts my father’s country has had, in the last 50 years alone? In short, it is unrealistic to think that a country will go too long without further internal conflict. Particularly a country populated with people from all sorts of different countries, cultures, and traditions.
There is too much evil characterization of both sides – by partisans today against each other and by many “historians” towards people of the past. North good, south bad is what tends to be what people want to hear anymore. The simplification of history, removing important nuance, has been a sad development
I agree. Reductionism and the 10-second attention span have both undermined our ability to explore nuance in meaningful ways.
Chris- You are clearly walking into the proverbial Lion’s Den with this one. Kudos. But watch out for incoming fire. Does stepping down from leadership of Emerging Civil War give you more breathing room to express your opinions?
I’m just trying to stimulate some discussion and give folks some things to think about, that’s all. I don’t mind if people disagree so long as they’re civil about it.
Or, as Winston Churchill said, ‘Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.’
Good post Chris regarding a timely event. Thanks for reminding us of the importance of our knowing and understanding history.
I too was shocked that Nikki Haley didn’t honestly answer the question and even more shocked at her damage controlled response that it was a Democratic plant asking the question. Are registered Democrats not allowed to attend town meetings by candidates of either party, let alone to politely ask a question? There was no shouting or demonstration or disruption of the proceedings. It is interesting that the Trump rally’s are almost all screened so anyone with an opposing view is not welcomed. There seems to be no compromise or sensible middle ground. It is quite scary that today’s politics are much like those of the 1860 election where the radicals from both spectrums are not able to work together for what’s best for our country and democracy. So sad for the majority of Americans. So sad for our great nation.
“Right now, too many Americans don’t want to hear what they don’t want to hear.” Or, perhaps they feel that they are being lectured to, by people who’ve apparently decided that they have the authority to tell others how their history should be interpreted and their ancestors should be perceived.
I suppose it depends on how you define “people who’ve apparently decided that they have the authority….” If, by “authority,” you just mean someone being pushy, then yes, I can see how that would be a turn-off. But some people spend a lot of time developing authority through years of study and a familiarity with primary sources and memory studies, and I think that kind of authority–we’ll call it “expertise”–is earned, not something that’s “decided” upon. But too often, that expertise is dismissed by people who’ve never taken the time to develop similar expertise–people who’d rather believe what they want to believe than be confronted with contradictory information.
As far as your ancestors, I wouldn’t presume to tell you how to feel about them, myself. I don’t know anything about them or their specific circumstances, so I have no basis upon which to form an opinion!
Very well, and expertly, said. But I’ll point that some experts use their expertise to make broad-brush judgements about sensitive topics that need to be treated with nuance and respect for all sides concerned. The Naming Commission’s judgment on the motivation behind, and the enduring value of, Confederate memorials is that they are ALL Lost Cause totems. If you read the Preface to the commission’s final report—as I’m presuming everyone with Civil War expertise has—I don’t see how you can come to any other conclusion. That commission was headed by experts—-a Yale history professor and the former chairman of the History Department at West Point. If this is what experts do with their expertise, it makes you question the extent to which we should trust “experts” in the first place.
I’ve always argued that monuments should be considered on a case by case basis. And your comments about nuance are well said. The study of history, I think, is about understanding nuance. We need more of it because we live in a complicated, nuanced world!
In the past I have been confronted more than once by friends who asked, in a bewildered tone, why anyone would or should care about the Civil War. This incident provides yet another answer to that question.
Of course slavery was the cause of Secession. What is tragic and utterly wrongheaded in your otherwise predictable exposition is your mislabeling and minimizing of what then Governor Haley eloquently accomplished during the heated debate over the removal of Confederate flags from statehouse grounds in the aftermath of the North Charleston Massacre. It was capped by one of the best speeches by a modern local elected official I had and have ever heard. She was not, as you seem to be implying, giving in to pressure, but demonstrating measured and compassionate ladership. It came , as you might remember, as it was televised by CSpan, slightly more than a decade after impassioned oratory and a final compromise over removing them from the statehouse building itself onto those state house grounds.
Both fringes have engaged in all or nothing brinkmanship. But as regards “civics education”, it isn’t the Party of Lincoln in modern times that has engaged in widespread removal or defacement of monuments to those they disagree with, or as in the case of Hans Heg, and Thomas Jefferson, those they are just ignorant about. It was the Democratic Council of Chicago that condemned the memory of Stephen Douglas , the flawed but stalwart Unionist who support of Lincoln allowed a generally unified north to enter the first year of war. Those who claim to be advancing “social justice” terrorize, block, or, as in the recent case of three University presidents, selectively justify or “contextualize” the true hatefulness of speech they agree with. They are much closer in behavior to the “Fire Eaters” of 1860 than their enablers care to admit.
I would agree that the political Left has engaged in its own thought-police tactics. Censorship is an unfortunate problem from both the Left and the Right.
Haley did the right thing with the flag in S.C. (as she, apparently, is often quick to point out). But I don’t give her props for altruistically coming to that conclusion; she tried to squirm her way through that until she couldn’t. When she finally got there, I agree, she was eloquent.
Mr Pryor’s comment clearly addresses current views of many in the current Democrat party leadership. One can easily argue that your comment regarding the “political left” is a deflection of the point he raised and is a distinction which contains zero difference.
I try, in my response, Vic, to avoid making statements with too-broad brushes. I think, for instance, that there’s a difference between the far left and the middle-left just as there’s a difference between the middle-right and the far right and a difference between Conservativism and Trumpist populism. I also try to tread lightly because I don’t want discussions to bog down in hyper-partisan nonsense.
I could counter those examples John raises (many of which are perfectly valid) with similar examples from the right about curriculum “reform” and book banning, etc. My object isn’t to go tit-for tat because that’s not what I intended this discussion to be about.
Great points Mr. Pryor.
Well said.
Hear, hear…
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past. “– William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun
That phrase keeps ringing in my ears as I read and hear the coverage about Haley’s debacle.
The whole thing was an unforced error for Haley.
An unforced error or contempt for voters. She appeared scared to give a straight answer. Maybe she was tired after weeks of campaigning, but she has to be able to hit a softball question like that.
The fact that Civil War history has been front page news at times over the past ten years is an interesting and revealing phenomenon in itself aside from its use as a political cudgel from all sides. As sad as it is to see such stark divisions in our body politic it is nevertheless encouraging for those of us who study the war period to observe how the topics remain so relevant today. Your essay was well crafted. Thanks, Chris
Thanks, David!
Chris, so very well said. I think your last sentence sums it all up quite well — “Right now, too many Americans don’t want to hear what they don’t want to hear, and we’re all worse off for it.” We have stopped teaching history, we tear down statues, I could go on and on. We want to erase some of our founding fathers because they owned slaves — a common practice around the globe in that era. I would hope and pray we’ve learned from that practice and have moved on to the better, but have we? We enslave people in different ways in this day and age. It’s only through discussions we can never go back there again. As my momma would tell me growing up — let’s learn from our mistakes and become better people.
I like your momma’s advice!
Chris, what an interesting and thought provoking entry on a sleepy Saturday morning before New Years. It certainly generated a slew of responses to your essay. I didn’t need a cup of coffee to get my blood flowing!
Some opinions of citizens of our country are so very often coming from a place of ignorance and intolerance. You see it in discussion of politics throughout. One side or the other is “absolutely” right and closes their ears to anything they don’t want to hear. “ What is truth?” was asked of Christ by Pilate some two thousand years ago and the question is still relevant today. Truth is embedded in conscience which many people ignore. They ignored the wrong of slavery for hundreds of years before the Civil War and after it, unfortunately. That is why I have felt that the Civil War is still being fought today, in a manner of speaking.
“Are my truths the same as yours?”
I believe that truth is constant. We can deny it, walk away from it, but it stands there steadfast for all to see. We must also remember that the Civil War had a number of causes, the chief one being slavery. “Walk a mile in my shoes,”
and perhaps, combined with conscience, education and open mind, we will be able to see the other side more clearly. We will, together, be able to ascertain the “Truth.”
Just watched her admit she was wrong. And in any case we need a new president regardless where that person surfaces.
One thing I’ve always admired about you and ECW, Chris, is that you don’t shy away from hot button issues. Acknowledging that slavery was the cause of the Civil War should not be controversial. Nikki Haley’s response to the question of causation and her subsequent comments on the matter clearly demonstrate that she does see the slavery issue as controversial. And I would agree. The fact that it remains so is a sad commentary on where we are as a people with regard to our history. We’ve come a long way coming to grips with our past, but we still have a long way to go. Ms. Haley’s example is a good reminder that when we try to tiptoe by our history, putrid as some aspects of it might be, we all too often step right in it.
Thanks, Jim. I think the best way we can all come to a better understanding of our past is to talk about it (and in a fact-based way). I don’t think it does any good to shy away because that avoids rather than engages conversation.
I appreciate your response!
It would have been so simple for her to tell the truth: “The war was about the suppression of the South’s Constitutional rights, accompanied by financial, political and social bullying by Northern politicians, financiers, preachers and newspaper editors. After all, only seven percent of Southerners owned slaves, and six slave states stayed in the Union and kept their slaves, so the war certainly wasn’t about slavery.” Over and one. Can’t argue with facts…
You left out a couple things, Eric:
“…the South’s Constitutional rights TO OWN SLAVES, accompanied by financial, political and social bullying by Northern politicians, financiers, preachers and newspaper editors THAT WAS MATCHED BY SOUTHERN COUNTERPARTS. After all, only seven percent of Southerners owned slaves ALTHOUGH EVERYONE IN THE SOUTH BENEFITTED FROM THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STRUCTURES SLAVERY PROVIDED, and six slave states stayed in the Union and kept their slaves, PROVIND LINCOLN’S POINT THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO INTERFERE WITH SLAVERY WHERE IT ALREADY EXISTED.”
There. That’s better.
“ALTHOUGH EVERYONE IN THE SOUTH BENEFITTED FROM THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STRUCTURES SLAVERY ” Isn’t that a bit disingenuous? That the slave economy benefitted everyone only matters if everyone *knew* or *believed* it benefited him. To borrow from another comment, to some degree every US citizen benefitted from the displacement of thousands of American Indians, but that does not necessarily mean every US citizen knew or believed that displacement created some benefit for them. “For Cause and Comrades” tells us few Confederate soldiers were motivated by protecting slavery. Unless there is some similar research that *every* Southern citizen viewed slavery as a benefit, you are making a large assumption. Whether slavery did in fact benefit *every* Southerner is beside the point. The salient point is did *every* Southerner *believe* slavery benefitted him? Do you really think a dirt farmer actually said: “You know, Caleb, this here newspaper says cotton exports are way up. Even though we don’t raise cotton, and only raise enough to feed our family, I receive all kinds of indirect benefits from other folks owning slaves. I better risk my life, my limbs, and the lives of my family, and everything we own to protect the right to own slaves! … I better go and enlist!”
Tom
We are letting the stupidly of current political candidates divert the ECW from its primary mission, one of which should be examining the political issues leading up to 0430hrs
12 April 1861. Much more can be learned from the people and events that led up to that irreversible moment.
I respectfully disagree. Yes, we can learn ABOUT those events that led up to the war of the war, but if we don’t learn FROM them, then we’re doomed to repeat history’s mistakes and we fail to learn from the wisdom it offers us. I know that sounds cliché, but I believe that if we’re just reading about history for history’s sake, it’s little more than a form of entertainment, which seems shallow to me.
Maybe its time to re-name this blog “Emerging Civil War Activism.”
Tom
There’s that famous William Faulkner quote, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” It does an injustice to the past and the present to view the Civil War in some kind of bubble where nothing before it affected it and it didn’t have an impact on anything that comes after (up to this moment).
I’ll also repeat something I often say to those who don’t like ECW content: “if you want to see a type of specific content you are always welcome to send it in as a guest post. We had a robust list of guest posts this year submitted by a wide range of folks from different backgrounds, and we have a great list of Editorial Board members who help review submissions. If you want to change the content ECW publishes, this is your opportunity to add to the list – we’d be happy to review it soon.” It’s much easier to criticize than it is to generate the free content here.
Except, of course, you are wrong. You and many like you refuse to deal with the actual facts of that history and are woefully undereducated on it. Slavery was a big sectional issue, but had there been no slavery, there still would have been a Civil War over the North’s refusal to reduce spending and accommodate Southern concerns over the effects of tariffs on their specific economy. Give “Empire of Cotton”, Beckert, and the US Treasury Report 1859-60 a try.
The tariff issue is a favorite red herring of people who don’t like to talk about slavery. The South had all the political power it needed in Washington–in both houses in Congress and in sympathetic chief executives–to deal with the economic issues you mention. And the “specific economy” of the South you mentioned was based on, yes, you guessed it, slavery.
Even if the questioner was a Democrat plant, Candidate Nikky Haley should have answer the question as a softball, that the American Civil War was caused over the issue of Slavery. The Southern Slave owner class didn’t even give President-Elect Lincoln a chance. Candidate Lincoln’s prosition on the issue of slavery was that he was against the spread slavery into the territories and left it at that. The only reason Lincoln was elected was that the Democrat Party was divided. A great “what if” is what would happen if a united Democrat Party had won the 1860 election and would some of the Northern States seceeded?
The disappointing response by Candidate Haley is another reminder of how poorly American history is taught in American schools and colleges. I don’t think I ever had a class that on American history let alone the American Civil War. I have a B.A. in History and the American Civil War was never offered. I learned about the American Civil War was as a 10 year old visiting Gettysburg and receiving The American Hertiage Illustrated History of thr Civil War. I rather get my American history from Bruce Catton than Nikole Hannah-Jones.
History shouldn’t be Parson Weems nor Howard Zinn!