Posted on 06/25/2018 3:28:41 PM PDT by Mariner
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.”
But he said he doesn’t associate slavery with the war.
“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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
So that Vice President’s word has no meaning?
The Maryland Assembly were set to vote to leave the Union. Lincoln had them arrested so they could not meet to make it official. The city of Washington was built on Maryland soil.
Because slaveowners were a smaller percentage of the population than they were in the seceding states.
Slaveowners were only 3% of the population in Delaware and only 12% or 13% in Maryland and Missouri, rather than a quarter or half the population, as they were further South.
Kentucky was a marginal case -- a real swing state where many wanted to remain neutral. It was circumstances -- and the fact that the Confederates invaded the state -- that kept Kentucky in the Union.
So the president’s word has no meaning?
Indeed. All you have to do is look up and read the resolutions of secession passed by the Confederate states - all of them say it is about slavery and the supremacy of the white race. The stump speeches from the Confederate politicians at the time likewise - the Cornerstone Speech from the Confederate Vice President is perhaps the most illustrative. Look at the editorials in the newspapers in the South at the time. Look at the debate among the Confederate generals as to whether or not they should use black soldiers would undermine the very cause they were fighting for. It is irrefutable and overwhelming. Yet, when you point these facts out, the responses you normally get are "screw you" (or the equivalent)...nothing substantive - or they find some quotes of Lincoln where he was playing politics to placate the handful of slave states that did not secede (and he did not want to spark further secessions) as somehow explaining away all of the above.
It is also true that after the war there were northern politicians who decided to take advantage of the South's weakness and basically ravaged them, but that doesn't change the facts above. The current narrative that it wasn't about slavery but about "states rights" is actually not a new narrative - it began right after the war ended by the Southern politicians working to save face after their defeat - so the proceeded to rewrite the history of why the war began and that has taken root since that time among many...and the behavior of the northern politicians to ravage the South in the aftermath of the war added fuel to the fire of that narrative - they saw the "northern aggression" that was being described as the cause for the war in the rewriting of history...so it is completely understandable how this would be believed.
I would like to see an interview of Corey Stewart wherein these documents are presented to him to review and get his reaction as to his opinion after reviewing them and see what he has to say, but unfortunately the only kind of interview you could get would be someone screeching at him calling him a racist.
Some Northern states exercised their states' rights by declining to vigorously enforce the federal Fugitive Slave Act.
Southern states, upset about this, seceded and formed their own federal government, under whose constitution the states were prohibited from making their own decisions about slavery.
So the war was about states' rights.
The Union was the states' rights side.
Jackson didn’t sound too viable either, and was distantly mired in 3rd place anyway.
Freitas was the obvious choice but he was a “GOPE RINO” so most of FR didn’t want to hear that.
VA is not “solid” let alone “safe” rat, Trump lost it by 5 points that’s a far cry from Illinois but uh....it’s drying out red jello at least, into the territory of “rat-leaning” more than “swing”. Moving the wrong way.
Freitas would have been a longshot but him pulling the upset was at least POSSIBLE if the stars aligned.
Stewart seems to be looking at under 40%, though I think he’ll do better than Gilmore in 2008 (I still marvel at that disaster). If Stewart had been the nominee for Governor like people wanted, the democrats would have easily taken the State House instead of the GOP just hanging on.
Nominating him was foolish.
That was an insurrection which the federal government is EXPLICITLY empowered to repress insurrections in the Constitution. See Article 1, Section 10, paragraph 3 and tell me what that says
The Constitution lists those powers which belong to the Feds. Any others not on that list are the powers of the States which is so stated in the Constitution.
Actually, YOU need to do your homework, oldbill.
Have you ever visited the Lincoln Memorial in person?
I have.
If you had, you'd realize Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address is inscribed in huge letters on the wall next to him, and it contains NUMEROUS comments about slavery, including the fact the Confederate government at the time was fighting to preserve it.
Thanks, I’ve been studying the Civil War as a hobby for 20 years and I doubt I will ever understand some things about it.
The superior African slavers enslaved the inferior tribes and took all they had and then sold them to get rid of them permanently.
Properly, it was called,"The War of Northern Aggression!"
The next inductee to the Christine O’Donnell, Roy Moore, Todd Akin Loser’s Hall of Fame.
Davis said that the threat to slavery was the cause for secession. Secession was the cause of the war.
Your understanding of the Land laws is less than a bit and your superficial reasoning is at best specious.
It was all about “POWER” and wherein it would ultimately lie.
Saying the Civil war was because of slavery is no more accurate than saying World War II was all about the Jews.
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union
In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
Did the Union slave state of Maryland send soldiers to fight the Confederate slave state of North Carolina in order to end slavery or to protect slavery?
.......................................................
Maryland fought both ways. Those West of the Chesapeake Bay fought with Pennsylvania for the North. Those on the Eastern Shore of Maryland fought with the Army of Northern Virginia, therefor for the South.
Not a single republican owned a slave and that was true in the North and South. If you think the soldiers of the South fought to preserve slavery you would be wrong because the soldiers in the trenches did not own slaves nor did they want to.
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.