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 ...
I’m not an immigrant, genius.
Are you, from Mars maybe?
Eat me Reno.
IF Stewart drops out and the RINOs run a candidate I will NOT VOTE. Ever think of that you idiot?
There was enormous wealth in the south. In 1860, the value of slaves in the United States was more than the value of all of the nation’s railroads, factories, and banks.
Lincoln declared war to collect taxes. Plain and simple.
On April 15 and 19th, 1861: “Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein.”
On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: “The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln).
The north had been moving to an industrialized economy while the south had been content with selling high priced cotton to England and France.
So, to answer your question, the South couldn’t support their war effort because the North, rather strategically, rushed to capture Southern transportation systems for over-seas sales.
I could dive into for me what seems like the most concrete support that the war was primarily over taxes, and that is the Corwin Amendment.
I’m not racist, I think we’re all gods great gifts just with different wrapping paper, but I believe, through my research, the Civil War was fought between a mechanized north and an agricultural south that didn’t want to fund the same bullshit we have in both houses on congress today.
More DL BS I see. Let's look at that clause in Section 2:
"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."
So what does that mean? If means that if a slave escapes and runs away to a free state that they are still a slave, regardless of what the laws of the state may say. Fair enough. If apprehended by the local authorities the slave must be extradited to his home state. Fair enough. But I don't see the part where it was the duty of the state to apprehend those slaves. Runaway slave laws were federal laws. It was up to the federal government to enforce, not the states. So your claim that the states broke constitutional law by refusing to apprehend runaways is nonsense. How can they break a law they were not required to enforce?
To this day I do not think Rush realizes the Republican Party used to be known as the "Tariff Party:!
Exactly, slavery wasn’t actually gonna actually be abolished so why did the snowflake Slave owners freak out when someone they didn’t like won the election? The government even tried to pass an amendment forever enshrining slavery (Corwin amendment)
Cause having a federal government that wasn’t at their beck and call wasn’t acceptible to them. The feds might stop enforcing the fugitive slaves laws (at least they feared the would and claimed they would in their secessionist propaganda). There would be no expansion of slavery to the western territories. The Senate would have an ever expanding free state majority. In short it seems like the idiot bastard snowflake slave owners just freaked out, what a bunch of losers.
BTW would you have tried to escape if you were a slave?
I do find it endlessly amusing that you would willingly vote for the yankee carpetbagger just because he can recite the Lost Cause catechism.
What has this world come to?!!
Sons of Confederate Veterans
Protecting Southern heritage and protecting against revisionism.
I will disseminate information as I wish.
Every Senate campaign has a national interest.
We all have to make choices. When Stewart drops out, you hopefully you get a decent replacement. Speak up for that. Come November you vote or sit. If Stewart is still on the ballot, he loses, even with your vote, count on it. If a Rino replaces him, who knows. Maybe they get smart and find someone decent. Who knows. The party is not doing good at picking candidates in Virginia over past few years. I’ve since moved after 19 years and now am in Nevada. Similar problem. Heller. I won’t vote for him, even with Trump’s endorsement. He’s a loser Never Trumper in favor of amnesty and Obamacare. The later will cost me nearly $2,000 in a few days. That’s a big pocketbook issue to remind me.
Let's look at Ms. Pitcher's claims and your article.
Her first claim was: "The Maryland Assembly were set to vote to leave the Union. Lincoln had them arrested so they could not meet to make it official." Well the article that you posted shows that to be false. It says the legislature voted twice on the subject of secession without giving dates. The first vote was actually on April 29, 1861 and secession was voted down 53-13. No members of the legislature were arrested, even though Ben Butler wanted to. Lincoln issued an order forbidding it.
Ms. Pitcher continued: "Lincoln most certainly did have the Maryland officials arrested. He sent 1000 troops to occupy Federal Hill, thereby enslaving Baltimore, had the mayor and other officials arrested and held without charge, suspended Habeus Corpus, and effectively enslaved the people of Maryland..." blah, blah, blah. Federal Hill was not occupied by Butler until May 13, two weeks after the secession vote so it played no part in that. Butler did arrest Mayor Brown and other Baltimore political leaders but that played no part in the secession vote. The Maryland legislature continued to meet.
And now your claim echoing Ms. Pitcher's myriad of claims: "Arrest of the Maryland Legislature, 1861". Again, that is not correct. Lincoln had not arrested the legislature up to September 1861. And when a small percentage wanted again to vote on secession then conditions were quite different. By September, armed rebellion had been raging for four months. Battles had been fought, armies raised, the country was at war. In the middle of this a portion of the Maryland legislature wanted to vote to join that war. What were the authorities supposed to do? What would the Confederate authorities do in a similar situation?
Your comment is silly. Doesn’t matter, Stewart is dead man walking and will not only lose but will hurt other Republicans and Trump.
“If apprehended by the local authorities the slave must be extradited to his home state.”
Not correct. The slave must be turned over to the owner when and if the owner or his agent comes forward to claim the slave. It is the responsibility of the owner or agent to return the slave to the state from which he escaped, not the state in which the slave was apprehended. If the owner or owner’s agent does not make a claim for a fugitive slave, the state is required to do nothing.
Complete fantasy. It would have been an express constitutional amendment. The court cannot legislate. It cannot strike down a constitutional amendment.
To overturn the North’s slavery forever constitutional amendment, it would take 3/4s of the state’s ratifying it. There were 15 states that still had slavery at the time. Ergo it would have taken 45 states voting for a new amendment to overturn the Corwin Amendment. That’s 60 which is 10 more states than we have even today. Don’t even try to peddle some ridiculous fantasy about how a whole bunch of new states would have been created to pass that one amendment overturning the Corein Amendment.
There’s no way around it. The original 7 seceding states could have had slavery protected by express constitutional amendment had they been willing to accept that in exchange for staying in. They turned it down. Protection of slavery was obviously not the main concern of either side.
“The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln).”
The Charleston harbor was dredged 3 times before the war at Federal Government expense. Half of the roads built in South Carolina were built using Federal money (post roads)
Every light house along the South Carolina coast was built by the Federal Government, their keepers were paid by the Federal Government. South Carolina was free to request federal land for the construction of railroads if they so desire. So all the tax money was not spent up North.
What legislation was passed by Congress that appropriated Federal money to subsidize any Northern industry?
BS. Times are changing. Stewart is going to win.
Foolish to say so in today’s eliminate of hate Whites/Anti-Confederacy, but EXTREMELY CORRECT, Civil War was over States Rights.
Wanna bet? He will lose, he’s already lost. I spent 19 years in the area and I don’t know of a single conservative person that vote for him. And now he is risking and embarrassing Trump and Republicans. Stewart should quit now. The party has already said they won’t fund or support him. They need to make this clearer, disavow him. There is still time to get a good republican on the ballot, else that is one seat for Dems.
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.