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 ...
“There is a difference between withdrawing from a political structure which was never assented to”
That claim can’t survive the Olive Branch Petition that the Continental Congress sent King George on July 5, 1775 after fighting had already erupted.
They weren’t simply assenting to the King’s government, they were pleading with him to reconcile with them.
They clearly state that they remain obedient and loyal subjects of King George and that they do not desire independence.
It didn’t work. George rejected their pleading and issued his Proclamation of Rebellion calling out the traitors in words that Lincoln would echo 90 years later:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Rebellion
All four of them? Since when did four speak for 11?
The Taxes came from import Tariffs. The imports came in as payment for Southern Exports which made up about 80% of all US Exports to Europe.
First thing Lincoln did was to throw up a blockade that would stop trade between the South and Europe. No trade, no money. More importantly, the European powers never got to make the much larger profits they would have made with Southern independence.
Had the Europeans established normalized trade with the South and therefore reaped those larger profits, the Europeans would have been very interested in assisting the South in maintaining it's independence.
The War was about that 200 million dollars per year in trade going to the South instead of to New York and Washington DC.
And this is absolutely misleading.
That the North had bigger cities and larger populations is irrelevant. The money in payment for those exports did not belong to the Northern people or cities. It belonged to the Southern producers of the exports for which the imports and European cash were payments.
Your silly claim about the taxes being on Imports versus exports is the difference between taxing the front end of the Horse versus the rear.
Unless you put stuff into the front of the Horse, you won't get anything coming out of the back end of the Horse. It's the same money, it's just gone through the European horse.
The South was paying 80 % of the taxes, even though they only had 1/4th of the population. That's the honest truth.
The Vice President of the CSA was not the President of the USA. It was the President of the USA that started the war, and therefore only his reasons matter.
He didn't start the war to end slavery. He started the war to prevent the South from financially wrecking Northern Industries.
It was legally impossible to free the slaves. You need to come up with a new theory. That one doesn’t hold water.
You are correct. The Rust Cotton Picker came in 1920, way after the Civil War. I believe that the North predicted if the South could get the cost of picking down, they would have cheap cotton for their local mills. This would have happened if the cotton harvester was invented and slavery was still going on. With no need for the slaves doing the picking, slaves could be switched over to manufacturing; giving the North would have a big disadvantage. I believe the North considered this situation and acted accordingly.
Yes, we can hear Lincoln's asserted reasons for starting it, and we can deduce his unstated reasons for starting it.
The war was not in Davis' hands. I was always in Lincoln's hands, therefore only his reasons matter.
His reasons were economic.
Had they remained in the Union, it was literally impossible to abolish slavery, so your claim doesn't even make sense.
"Errant Sisters, depart in peace."
All that would have been required to achieve peace is the absenting of the unwanted house guests.
Washington yes. Lincoln no. Lincoln triggered a cataclysm. The world would have been a better place had he just let Seward win the nomination instead of stealing it by hook and crook.
I guess you are unfamiliar with the Declaration of Independence. No, we didn’t need the United Kingdom’s permission to leave. We had God’s permission to leave. So said the Founders.
“The section of the US Constitution which specifically required all states to return fugitive slaves is Article IV, Section 2.”
A state is has no obligation, under the Constitution, to return a runaway slave if no claim for that runaway is made by the party to whom such service or labor is due.
Article IV, section 2, clause 3.
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.
The US Constitution does not allow the creation of a state from the territory of an existing state without the permission of that state's legislature.
But who cares what the constitution said? What has that got to do with anything in this debate?
whereas the U.S. Constitution allowed states to make that determination rather than the federal government.
It did not. Just because people say it did, doesn't make it so. The privileges and immunities clause required states to respect the rights of other states. You couldn't prohibit a lawful slave owner from traveling through a state.
I mean, its pretty obvious to anyone who studies history that they only cared about the "right to secede", not the right to enslave human beings that they enshrined over and over again in their constitution and all their public statements about why they were seceding.
That right was enshrined in the US Constitution. See article IV, section 2. I guess the Confederates just wanted to make certain it was clearer in their constitution because they had already had a bellyfull of Liberal "living constitution" misinterpretation of what the US Constitution actually meant about slavery.
Look up the constitutional debates on the subject. The Southern slave states made it clear that if slavery wasn't protected, they wouldn't be joining the Union. The Northern "free" states said that they would agree to it if was a sticking point over the formation of the new Union.
Argue with Jefferson. He said otherwise. Jefferson actually wrote the Declaration of Independence.
We don’t even care what our own vice Presidents say. Often they are idiots.
No, it was "free Persons" and "all other Persons". From Article I, Section 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The three-fifths compromise was necessary to get the southern states to join the Union. Madison observed, “...[at the Constitutional Convention] the States were divided into different interests not by their difference of size, but principally from their having or not having slaves. It did not lie between the large and small States: it lay between the Northern and Southern.”
The word "slavery" does not appear until Amendment XIII.
Four of them say something along those lines. What about the other 7 states? Do we let 4 speak for all 11?
People trot that out because it fits the narrative they want to push. The truth is that the war was in Lincoln's hands, and it doesn't matter why the various states seceded. Probably every single Northern state would agree with every bit of that racist crap during that era in history.
You want to pretend they don't, but you should look at the Illinois "Black codes" sometime if you want to know what Lincoln's home state thought of blacks.
The war was fought because Lincoln wanted it fought. He sent a war fleet to fire on the confederates at Sumter to start the war. He was going to start it one way or the other, because he needed the war. Nobody in the South wanted it or needed it, but Lincoln did.
The South as a whole was not very interested in manufacturing. Cash crop agriculture was where the money was at. There were about 110,000 people out of 9,000,000 people in the South involved in manufacturing in 1860. As a percentage, 84% of the South’s population was engaged in agriculture. The capital the South generated from cash crop agriculture was plowed back into cash crop agriculture, not manufacturing. Textile mills located only a few miles away for the raw material and using substantial slave labor failed, because Southerners were not interested in buying the textiles.
Point of order. That particular "right" was seceded when they ratified the constitution. The Constitution to which they agreed, contains a clause that REQUIRES fugitive slaves to be returned to their masters.
A state cannot exercise a "right" they signed away. The Northern states were REQUIRED by the US constitution to return fugitive slaves, and they deliberately BROKE that constitutional law. Repeatedly.
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.