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 ...
But deliberately lying about the meaning of words has long been a liberal tactic.
Apparently Lincoln initially offered "If you like your slavery you can keep your slavery", to paraphrase that other race obsessed Liberal Lawyer from Illinois who became President.
200 million dollars per year in 1860 dollars was easily enough to trigger a war, and as i've explained to you and others previously, the financial losses to Lincoln's backers were going to be even worse than that.
European goods were going to flood the Western territories due to the greatly reduced import tariffs. The manufactures in the North East would have lost those customers .
If the Confederates had put their tariffs up around 40% like the Union, they would have probably been allowed to leave in peace. The North wouldn't have perceived it as a great reduction in their trade profits, and may have left the South alone.
Post Virginia’s declaration of Secession. How about that? Stop cherry picking your crap facts.
It wasn't about "preserving the Union." Lincoln was going to give up Ft. Sumter if Virginia would offer assurances that they would remain in the Union.
Lincoln was willing to accept the breakup of the Union provided it didn't get too big. He would have let the seven go in exchange for keeping Virginia.
Virginia was going to give him those assurances, but by the time they told him so, it was already too late. He had already sent the attack fleet against the Confederates in Charleston.
LOL! Absolutely ludicrous. Making a flippant (or even reasoned) assertion like that will never make it true.
For one thing, in the buildup to the Civil War, there was an animated national debate over whether any State even had the right to secede from the Union. There was also an equally animated and contentious debate over the Abolition of Slavery. At the very least, the Republican Party won the latter debate and consequently seized power at the Federal level relatively quickly.
To provide some context, let us recall that—as you doubtless well know—the Republican Party was founded (in 1854) by a coalition of Anti-Slavery advocates—and seven short years later, that upstart party controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. That's right: at the start of the Civil War the staunchly Anti-Slavery GOP—not any party beholden to "Northern business interests"—solidly held the reigns of power in the Federal Government.Thus, to argue that "the North invaded the South" because of "economic jealousy" and that (by extension) "Northern business interests" somehow controlled federal policy in the North—in a Federal Government dominated by Anti-Slavery ideologues, no less—is utterly laughable.
Indeed, the fact that not one, but two Righteous Causes—Ending Slavery and Preserving the Union—induced the People in the North (through their elected government) to prosecute the "War of Northern Aggression" (another Southern delusion)—decisively puts the lie to the revisionist fantasy that the Civil War was primarily fought due to "economic jealousy between the North and South" over access to "lucrative" European markets.
Your whimsical theory—which you so eloquently and tirelessly advocate in this community, and which has been consistently rejected by an overwhelming majority of historians through all the years that have followed the Civil War—stands refuted by both historians and laymen alike.
I reiterate: to seriously suggest that Northern business interests—many of whose owners, employees, and stockholders subsequently had to send their own sons to fight and die on distant Confederate (and Union) battlefields—would selfishly sacrifice those lives on the bloody altar of Moloch—simply because of economic jealousy about potential future Southern access to European markets—is neither logical nor plausible.
It. Is. To. Laugh.
“European goods were going to flood the Western territories due to the greatly reduced import tariffs”
Only by smuggling. The U.S. Government has a right to collect tariffs on goods entering it’s territories from foreign countries. Legally traded goods from the Confederacy would have had to have the tariffs paid on them plus the importer into the Confederacy would have had to pay the Confederate tariff. This double tariff on goods would give the Northern manufacturers an advantage, their goods would be cheaper because they didn’t have to pay the tariffs.
You have good knowledge of the history. If southerners were not interested in buying the textiles, what about the European markets? I can’t understand why the south couldn’t get their manufacturing going. They had great advantages.
Rush disappoints at times sadly
He was milquetoast on Trump till the fury grew too loud to ignore
Sadly, I've never yet seen a post from DiogenesLamp which wasn't "absolutely misleading."
DiogenesLamp: "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."
Those "Southern producers" were slaves, but don't expect DiogenesLamp to argue they should have received their "fair share".
To your point: just as every dollar in DiogenesLamp's wallet belongs to DiogenesLamp -- until you spend it, then it rightfully belongs to somebody else, not to you.
Same with antebellum "Southern" export earnings.
DiogenesLamp: "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."
Sadly, many of DiogenesLamp's claims are silly and often delivered super-cilliously.
DiogenesLamp: "The South was paying 80 % of the taxes, even though they only had 1/4th of the population.
That's the honest truth."
Fortunately no, it's a dishonest lie, which becomes 0% more truthful with your constant repetition.
Sure, Deep South cotton was ~50% of US exports, but every other "Southern product" could be & was produced outside the south.
This was clearly demonstrated in 1861 when elimination of all Confederate exports reduced total US exports only 35%.
For example, "the South's" number two export after cotton was tobacco and it fell only 15% in 1861.
And exports of clover seed & hops, both classified as "Southern products", multiplied in 1861!
At the same time western & northern exports also increased with the net result of only 35% overall reduction in 1861.
Indeed, excluding raw cotton, US 1861 exports actually increased about 7%.
More important, wealthy antebellum Southerners purchased a long list of manufactured & food products from Northern & Western states, and those "exports" helped Northerners pay for the vast majority of European imports.
So any suggestions that "the South" "paid for" 80% or even more of Federal revenues are just, well, whistling Dixie.
Balderdash. The U.S. Supreme Court (sooner or later) would have issued a sane and Constitutional ruling which would have abolished Slavery and Involuntary Servitude throughout the entire United States and its territories—in stark contrast to the morally reprehensible, logically twisted, and patently unconstitutional Dred Scott decision.
Alternately or additionally, a Constitutional Amendment closely resembling the 13th Amendment would have eventually been ratified—starting with the North, but eventually with widespread support in both the South and the West—and the "Wheels of Progress" would cause America's "Original Sin" to inexorably fade into a shameful but distant memory...
Your reply makes no sense to any statement I made. My point was that, if slavery did not exist, there would have been no war. Therefore, slavery was clearly the cause of the conflict.
Same difference.
The probably couldn’t compete with the Brits in Europe for textiles. The Northern textile manufacturers also had a hard time competing with the Brits in Europe. Why couldn’t the South get their manufacturing going? Part was resources. Iron ore and anthracite coal were not mined in the South at the time. Most all of the machinery and raw materials would have to be shipped to the South from somewhere else. Workers skilled in manufacturing trades such as machinists, foundry men, and patternmakers would have to compete with slaves with the same skills. A lot of the skilled employees of Northern mills learned their trades in Europe before immigration. Why go South to find work if you have to compete with a slave for jobs. Another part of the equation was cultural. Southerners took great pride in being farmers and planters. There was a disdain in the Southern attitudes toward manufacturing or engineering. The entire culture of the South was anchored to agriculture. While not every Southerner felt this way, a quote by Texas Confederate Senator Wigfall is inciteful into the Southern perspective.
“We have no commercial marine-no navy-we don’t want them. Your ships carry our produce and you can protect your own vessels. We want no manufactures; we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufacturing classes. As long as we have our cotton, our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, we can command wealth to purchase all we want from these nations with which we are in amity.”
As an immigrant I don’t expect you to understand the true meaning of US history. You are not a native born American as such your roots are shallow.
Your state really f-ed up. So stay out of VA politics. If Stewart drops out I will not be voting....
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.