GOP candidate: Civil war wasn’t about slavery

Republican Senate nominee Corey Stewart said that he doesn’t believe that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery, arguing that it was mostly about states’ rights.

In a Monday interview with Hill.TV’s “Rising,” Stewart, who recently won the GOP nomination in the Virginia Senate race, said that not all parts of Virginia’s history are “pretty.”

“I don’t at all. If you look at the history, that’s not what it meant at all, and I don’t believe that the Civil War was ultimately fought over the issue of slavery,” Stewart said.

When “Rising” co-host Krystal Ball pressed him again if the Civil War was “significantly” fought over slavery, Stewart said some of them talked about slavery, but added that most soldiers never owned slaves and “they didn’t fight to preserve the institution of slavery.”

“We have to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who were fighting at that time and from their perspective, they saw it as a federal intrusion of the state,” he said.

Stewart also said he doesn’t support a Richmond elementary school named after a Confederate general deciding to rename it after former President Obama.

1860 raw cotton exports totaled nearly $200 million of which at most 5% shipped from Charleston.
Rice exports totaled $2.5 million of which Charleston shipped maybe half.
Charleston was simply not a major player in the economic life of the South, regardless of what its promoters claimed.

All the sources I’ve read indicated you are wrong. Charleston was a major port - one of the richest in the country. Ever been there? There are some very swanky old houses. That place had a lot of money. It was a major port in terms of value.

Bombshell. My version vs yours. Starting with mine:

“When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully, and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.” A. Lincoln

Yours:

“I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.”

Now can you discern the differences? How do you account for that?

One is a Lincoln quote. The other is fake.

One has Lincoln saying what he “would” do, the other has him saying what he “will” do.

One says “fugitives”, the other says “Fugitive Slaves” (in bolded font, no less).

One puts qualifiers on the hypothetical legislation for fugitives, the other does not.

One is the words of Lincoln in 1854, the other is manufactured propaganda (as if it were the words of President Lincoln.)

FLT-bird: "All the sources I’ve read indicated you are wrong.
Charleston was a major port - one of the richest in the country."

Certainly rich in terms of self-promotion, but tiny compared to New Orleans, Baltimore or St. Louis.
Along the Southern coast Charleston compared to Richmond & Mobile.
Yes, it was bigger than Norfolk, Wilmington, Savanah, Jacksonville & Pensacola, but those all also connected to the railroad grid and could easily serve if Charleston was, ahem, temporarily indisposed.

FLT-bird: "Ever been there? There are some very swanky old houses.
That place had a lot of money.
It was a major port in terms of value."

Sure, but not indispensable either economically or militarily.
When Charleston was blockaded or attacked the Confederacy got along because there were plenty of alternatives.
And that's my only point here.

Indeed, if we can return to those Michigan & Ohio forts occupied by the Brits after 1783, we could easily argue they were more important economically & militarily to President Washington in the 1790s than was Fort Sumter to Jefferson Davis in the 1860s.
Those British forts resulted in what has been called:

"It was 'the most decisive defeat in the history of the American military.'[2]
It was the largest victory ever won by American Indians.[3]"

St.Clair's Defeat (aka, "The Battle of the Wabash" and "The Battle of a Thousand Slain") made Custer at Little Big Horn look like a Saturday night barroom brawl.
Those British forts controlled the whole of the Northwest Territory (aka "The Blue Wall", aka "Trump Country") and prevented western migration for over a decade.

By contrast Charleston controlled nothing, prevented nothing and was easily bypassed whenever the need arose.

Baltimore and St. Louis were not in the original 7 seceding states. Charleston was.

Charleston was quite important and I disagree about the alternatives you cited being that important at the time. It was a major port and one of great importance in the original 7 seceding states.

By contrast Charleston controlled nothing, prevented nothing and was easily bypassed whenever the need arose.

I disagree as do numerous historians. Charleston was a major and very important port in the original 7 seceding states. No, it was not easily bypassed.

Of course there are many forms of psychological slavery that can be debated somewhere else.

This subject is physical slavery, people owning, buying and selling other people for money.

“effectively negated results the amendments intended” I hope you mean temporarily and in limited ways restricted the amendments’ intentions.

Your phrase was “slightly less obnoxious” and then you offer Jim Crow and the KKK as examples of “slightly”....... Yup, I’m still grinning ear to ear..... not at the oppression of blacks, but of the absurd notion that they are in any way slight alternatives.

“abolition was the 100% majority view in the North, for their own states” Agreed, I should have better explained that abolition in the slave states was not a majority view held by northerners, most of whom had no personal experience with slavery and considered it someone else’s problem.

“the Davis/Corwin amendment” may have succeeded, but the shooting started before it had a chance. Davis wanted slavery to be a nationally recognized power rather than a state by state choice.

In North America during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, there is documented evidence of more than 250 uprisings or attempted uprisings involving 10 or more slaves:

https://www.amazon.com/Negro-Revolts-United-States-1526-1860/dp/B000J0SMRY

My point is, it would have gotten worse. My family was heavily involved in helping slaves escape. They were willing to fight in the Civil War and did. I have no doubt that they and many others would have subversively supported slave rebellions.

John Brown raided an armory to steal weapons to give to slaves. He failed because he was irrational, a nut, and couldn’t attract enough followers for a general uprising. He also lacked an information network to inform slaves of his actions.

“When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-—to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south.”

For some reason I never see D’Souza introduce this quote in his musings.

I'd like to see him explain this as a justification for today's liberals to stream to the polls and vote a straight Republican ticket.

I'm thinking D’Souza should just pretend this was never the policy of the head of the GOP.

For some reason I never see D’Souza introduce this quote in his musings.

Possibly because he's too busy making idiotic claims like there was never a single Republican slave owner?

But as for your choosing this particular quote it doesn't surprise me at all. You and your Confederate brethren and sisterhood are the masters of the partial quote and quote out of context. Lincoln went on to say, "... but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."

Can you show me a quote from any Southern leader showing they believed the black man was their equal in any way? Or a quote indicating that they believed a black man had any rights a white man was bound to recognize? You or D'Souza can respond; I don't much care which.

FLT-bird: "Charleston was a major and very important port in the original 7 seceding states.
No, it was not easily bypassed."

Of course Charleston was important, to Charlestonians, and nobody can blame them for promoting their own city.

But in March, 1861, if you are Jefferson Davis, you are at the Confederacy's capital in Montgomery, Alabama.
From Montgomery you can ride Confederate rails to:

three harbors in Louisiana (near New Orleans),
two in Alabama (near Mobile),
three on the Gulf coast of Florida (Pensacola, Tallahassee & Cedar Key) ,
two more on the Atlantic coast of Florida (Jacksonville, St. Mary's),
two in Georgia (Brunswick, Savanah) plus
Charleston in SC.

That's 13 7-state Confederate ports inter-connected by the Southern rail network.
You could also ride on, to:

two more friendly ports in North Carolina (Wilmington, New Bern) and finally
to Norfolk & Richmond, Virginia, which will be your new capital.

That's 17 Confederate ocean ports all inter-connected by rail to each other.
They're one reason you (Jefferson Davis) are not overly concerned about the prospect of a Union blockade.
You well know that would be difficult at best, impossible more likely.

Yeah, sure, of course South Carolinians claim their little port is, ahem, "special", but you know it's only one of 17 which can eventually do the same job.

What I provided was ACCURATE.

Shirley you don’t mean to insist that the “quote” you provided was the actual words of Abraham Lincoln. Truth matters, guy. You are practiced in the Lost Causer art of deception. May I suggest that you accidentally quoted a misquote (accurately)? Consider your sources, dude.

It said “Slaves” instead of “their fugitives” when by “their fugitives” it was clear he was talking about “slaves”. There was no need to go into a long explanation about that.

I don’t disagree that “their fugitives” obviously referred to colored people in bondage (also known as Slaves) who had escaped their masters and run to a free state . It is not your place to put words in Lincoln’s mouth and then attribute them to him. But what the political speech, as part of the Lincoln/Douglas Debates, addressed in the passage in question, was a hypothetical. Please read the passage above the one in question, conveniently provided by your fellow Lost Causer, J.Effersondem. It said “if”, and then is followed by “I would”. Your “quote” seems to change “I would” into “I will”, without the “if” part. Perhaps, if Jeffersondem would be so kind (it appears he has the proper text handy) he can provide you with the actually accurate text and context. Lost Causer answer Lost Causer.

“Can you show me a quote from any Southern leader showing they believed the black man was their equal in any way?”

Here’s what one Southern leader said:

“Ladies and Gentlemen, I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the Southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God’s earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. (Immense applause and laughter.) I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man, to depress none.

(Applause.)
I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don’t propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I’ll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand.” (Prolonged applause.)

Of course Charleston was important, to Charlestonians, and nobody can blame them for promoting their own city.

But in March, 1861, if you are Jefferson Davis, you are at the Confederacy’s capital in Montgomery, Alabama.
From Montgomery you can ride Confederate rails to:

three harbors in Louisiana (near New Orleans),
two in Alabama (near Mobile),
three on the Gulf coast of Florida (Pensacola, Tallahassee & Cedar Key) ,
two more on the Atlantic coast of Florida (Jacksonville, St. Mary’s),
two in Georgia (Brunswick, Savanah) plus
Charleston in SC.

That’s 13 7-state Confederate ports inter-connected by the Southern rail network.
You could also ride on, to:

two more friendly ports in North Carolina (Wilmington, New Bern) and finally
to Norfolk & Richmond, Virginia, which will be your new capital.

That’s 17 Confederate ocean ports all inter-connected by rail to each other.
They’re one reason you (Jefferson Davis) are not overly concerned about the prospect of a Union blockade.
You well know that would be difficult at best, impossible more likely.

Yeah, sure, of course South Carolinians claim their little port is, ahem, “special”, but you know it’s only one of 17 which can eventually do the same job.

Yes there WERE other ports. That does not mean Charleston wasn’t important or that they were as big/important as Charleston was. Only New Orleans could claim that at the time. No country is going to say “surrrrre! Just keep a fortress in the middle of the harbor of one of our biggest ports. We’re totally cool with that.” That’s totally unrealistic.

But hey, I’m sure we can go back and forth 10 or 20 more times with this nonsensical sidetrack, so by all means let’s keep going with it. Let’s drag this out for a couple more weeks! :rolleyes:

Shirley the gist of the quote was accurate. Yes it contextualized “their fugitives” to “slaves” when by saying “their fugitives” what he meant was “slaves”. You are practiced in the PC Revisionist art of dissembling. The quote I cited was accurate. In no way, shape or form did I give the reader a false impression as to what Lincoln actually said.

Criminy! Changing “their fugitives” to “slaves” when that is EXACTLY what he meant beyond any dispute is not deceptive. This is an entirely semantic argument. His position was that he supported fugitive slave legislation just as he supported keeping slavery just as he supported providing express protections of slavery via a constitutional amendment. None of these were unusual positions to take at the time. Its just uncomfortable for Lincoln cultists and PC Revisionists to admit those were his positions because they are deeply emotionally invested in the myth of the virtuous North.

Here’s what one Southern leader said:

Ah nothing like Grade-A Southern revisionism. You can quote Nathan Bedford Forrest post rebellion all you want. But lets concentrate on prior to the rebellion, shall we? Then the only thing Forrest had to say about black men was "Sold! To the man in the blue suit."

So before the war, how about a quote from any Southern leader who thought the black man was their equal in any way? Or a quote showing they believed a black man had any rights a white man was bound to respect?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.