Nikki Haley's Slavery Remark Trashed by Civil War Historians

A controversial explanation for the cause of the American Civil War given by Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley has been soundly rejected by two prominent historians, with one telling Newsweek that the former South Carolina governor's initial failure to mention slavery is "the kind of thing southern [white] politicians have been doing ever since the Confederacy lost."

Haley was asked what caused the Civil War by a voter on Wednesday during a town hall in Berlin, New Hampshire. She replied: "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 went on to say: "I mean, I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are. And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn't need to tell you how to live your life. They don't need to tell you what you can and can't do. They don't need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom."

The voter who asked the question responded: "In the year 2023, it's astonishing to me that you'd answer that question without mentioning the word slavery."

Haley's comments sparked fierce backlash, including from within her own party, and speaking in North Conway, New Hampshire, she later clarified: "Of course the Civil War was about slavery. We know that."

The row came as Haley has gained momentum in the GOP presidential race, with a Rasmussen Reports survey published this month showing she had replaced Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as Donald Trump's main challenger for the Republican nomination, with 13 percent of the vote to Trump's 51 percent.

Speaking to Newsweek professor (emeritus) William Harris, a historian who specializes in the Civil War, criticized Haley's initial explanation for how the conflict started.

"Haley's avoidance of the relationship of slavery and the Civil War is the kind of thing southern [white] politicians have been doing ever since the Confederacy lost," he said. "Before the war, they did not try to hide the truth, far from it.

"In Haley's own state, when South Carolina seceded, the secession convention published an address that declared South Carolina had acted because of 'the action of the nonslaveholding states' against 'the rights of property established in fifteen of the states' [i.e., property in human beings].

"In the summer of 1861, the vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, gave a well-known speech known as the 'cornerstone' speech: the new government's 'foundation are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery...is his natural and normal condition.' Other states published similar statements. They didn't try to pretend that slavery was not the cause of secession, and hence war."

Professor Nina Silber of Boston University, author of This War Ain't Over: Fighting the Civil War in New Deal America, argued that Haley's comments were a deliberate bid to appeal to the current GOP grassroots.

"I'd say Nikki Haley's response to the question about what caused the Civil War was calculated to appeal to a big majority of present-day Republican voters," Silber told Newsweek. "She clearly evaded the issue of slavery and, at least initially, emphasized other factors like different approaches to government and some vague understanding about 'freedom.'

"Since the emergence of the modern civil rights movement in the 1950s, the Republican party has largely adhered to a 'Lost Cause' view of the Civil War, a view designed to appeal to many white Southerners who were loath to tie the Confederate cause to the perpetuation of slavery, even though the preponderance of evidence from the 1860s suggests that slavery [its expansion, its perpetuation] was central to the secessionist cause.

"Instead, Republicans embraced a 'states' rights' perspective, one that centered on vague notions of individual freedoms and the right to fend off the 'overreach' of the federal government. It was a perspective that fit perfectly with the language many white Southerners adopted in opposition to Civil Rights in the 1950s and 60s—to defend states' rights and attack the federal government for any efforts designed to advance a civil rights agenda."

Matthew Karp, an associate professor of history at Princeton University, agreed the Civil War was primarily about slavery, but argued the widespread condemnation of Haley's comments shows the waning of confederate sympathies within the contemporary United States.

In an interview with Newsweek, he commented: "It's obvious me, or any student who has looked at any document produced in the Civil War era, that slavery was at the absolute center of the conflict—on all sides. Haley's confused remarks can be seen as part of a long and ignoble tradition, which began just after the fighting stopped, of attempting to hide what cannot be hidden.

"That said, with relation to today's politics, I'm less struck by Haley's garbled comments than the larger response. The media condemnation seems almost universal; Haley's rivals, including DeSantis and Trump, have blasted her for refusing to acknowledged the centrality of slavery; and Haley reversed herself almost overnight, making clear that she, too, sees slavery at the heart of things.

"To me—as I argued in an essay for Harper's a few years ago—this all shows the diminished potency of the old Lost Cause tradition in American politics, even on the Right. Compare this Republican primary moment to George W. Bush's candid defense of the right to fly the Confederate flag itself, back in 2000. Wherever the Republican Party may be headed today—and a new kind of ultra-nationalist politics seems to be on the table—it is not running back to the old Confederacy."

Newsweek has reached out to Haley's campaign by email for comment.

Update 1/4/24, 2:40 a.m. ET: This story has been updated with additional comment from Princeton historian Matthew Karp.