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 ...
How about a quote, in context of course, from any Southern leader who believed the black man was their equal in any way?
And don't barf up that Forrest quote again. Even if he actually said it he doesn't mention equality.
Also known as "chattel slavery" where recognized & enforced by laws.
The second most common form of slavery practiced in the early United States was Indentured Servitude which is sometimes referred to when people say: "the North also had millions of white slaves", in an effort to conflate one form with the other.
gandalftb: " 'effectively negated results the amendments intended' I hope you mean temporarily and in limited ways restricted the amendments’ intentions."
Sure, if you consider about 100 years "temporary".
And if you consider denial of voting rights "limited".
And if you consider lynching "restricted".
gandalftb: "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."
Sorry if you missed the irony in my word "slightly".
But perhaps you've developed a sense of justice so finely tuned that you can measure the moral difference between, oh, say, slavery and lynchings?
gandalftb: "Agreed, I should have better explained that abolition in the slave states was not a majority view held by northerners..."
Right.
gandalftb: " '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."
Several posters on these threads want to make Corwin all about Lincoln and his supposed support for slavery.
In reality the idea originated with people like Senator Davis as a way to stop further secessions.
Lincoln played no role in its passage by Congress or in its ratification by just four states.
Lincoln did not "offer" Corwin to "the South" and the "the South" did not "reject" his "offer".
gandalftb: "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:"
This link mentions your 250 slave revolts, but only names three, the last being Nat Turner in 1831, which involved about 70 slaves and over 100 killed, black & white.
After that, what it lists are not really slave revolts, for example John Brown's raid.
The absence of named events leads me to think they may really be talking about more-or-less routine violence between white slave-patrols and slaves caught somewhere they were forbidden to go.
And your book is from 1939, not updated or superseded by more recent works, leading me to wonder if its scholarship isn't somehow less than exemplary?
Further, everything I've read suggests Southerners certainly did fear slave revolts, but in fact they were almost non-existent in the United States.
That suggests, as many then claimed, that US slaves were relatively well treated.
gandalftb: "My point is, it would have gotten worse. "
Maybe, there's just no way to predict what might have happened had there been no secession, Confederacy or Civil War in 1861.
Posters to these threads claim pretty much everything, especially that the South was going to abolish slavery anyway.
I doubt that -- I think as long as the South maintained its global position as the world's premiere supplier of cotton, both the South and slavery would continue to prosper, just as they did in the decades before 1861.
As for the Underground Railroad, estimates suggest no more than a few thousand per year (out of 4 million slaves) and nearly all of those from Border States or the Upper South.
It only slightly effected the Deep South which nevertheless used fugitive slaves as their legal justification for secession.
Lincoln's Peoria Speech was delivered in October 1854, when Lincoln was a Whig, not Republican.
Lincoln did not certainly become Republican until the 1856 elections.
The reason Whigs were replaced by Republicans can be boiled down to one word: abolition.
All of which we can be certain D'Souza knows and Democrats like jeffersondem are loathe to admit.
Sometimes posters here like to claim that Republican Grant owned slaves but Democrat Lee did not.
That only possibly works if you don't count slaves which belonged to Lee's wife.
As for Grant, he voted for the Democrats in both 1856 and 1860, so D'Souza's claim remains valid.
Whatever slave Grant owned, he did while a Democrat.
Just imagine that your feelings towards Charleston, however justified or not, were shared by many settlers in the US Northwest Territories after 1783, when the Brits promised to evacuate their many forts & posts, but did not.
And British support for Indians there lead directly to arguably the greatest US military disaster of all time: St. Clair's Defeat in 1791 -- a thousand killed only 24 survived.
So what did President Washington do about those British forts?
He sent his Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, to London in 1794 to negotiate, two years later the British troops withdrew.
Now there's no possible way that Fort Sumter in Charleston could have effects equivalent to those British forts, and yet President Washington found a peaceful way to resolve the issue.
Jefferson Davis, by contrast, had no interest in such a course of action.
James Wallace was a Maryland Republican, slave holder, and commander of the 1st Maryland Eastern Shore Infantry Regiment at Gettysburg. George Fisher was the second largest slave owner in Delaware and was also a Republican congressman during the Lincoln Administration. Benjamin Burton, the largest Delaware slave owner was a prominent local Republican. D'Souza's claim is BS.
Lincoln’s Peoria Speech was delivered in October 1854, when Lincoln was a Whig, not Republican.
Lincoln did not certainly become Republican until the 1856 elections.
The reason Whigs were replaced by Republicans can be boiled down to one word: abolition.
All of which we can be certain D’Souza knows and Democrats like jeffersondem are loathe to admit.
The problem for you here is neither Lincoln nor the VAST majority of Republicans were abolitionists.
Your argument fails.
Just imagine that your feelings towards Charleston, however justified or not, were shared by many settlers in the US Northwest Territories after 1783, when the Brits promised to evacuate their many forts & posts, but did not.
And British support for Indians there lead directly to arguably the greatest US military disaster of all time: St. Clair’s Defeat in 1791 — a thousand killed only 24 survived.
So what did President Washington do about those British forts?
He sent his Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, to London in 1794 to negotiate, two years later the British troops withdrew.
Now there’s no possible way that Fort Sumter in Charleston could have effects equivalent to those British forts, and yet President Washington found a peaceful way to resolve the issue.
Jefferson Davis, by contrast, had no interest in such a course of action.
The Northwest Frontier was a backwater rather than one of the nation’s principal harbors. Also the British did not send a heavily armed flotilla to reinforce the garrison. Lincoln did.
At least you admit there was some “changing”. However it involved more than just the change you mention.
This is an entirely semantic argument.
Yeah, sure. You are broadbrushing this as “An entirely semantic argument”. Words have meanings. Try to stay focused.
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.
I can’t help but notice that you are well indoctrinated in Lost Causer-ology. There will be plenty of time to get into that.
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.
Do you know what the word “ironic” means? Do you understand what “projection” means? Why do you ignore the rest of what I’ve said about your “quote”. Here, let me show you how your accurate quote looks to me:
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.” FLT-bird
Do you understand connotative vs denotative? What is this “myth of the virtuous North” that you mention? Why is it that all lost causers are so-well versed in this myth?........ and yet I don’t run into it?
At least you admit there was some “changing”. However it involved more than just the change you mention.
Their fugitives to explicitly slaves was the biggest change by far and that was an ACCURATE paraphrase. I can’t believe you’re still trying to argue this 2 days later considering you have no argument.
Oh I’m focused. Its just that you can’t give us any difference of substance...there was no change of meaning. If one read the entire statement one would see he said “their fugitives” to mean “slaves”. It wasn’t really necessary to read the whole thing. “Slaves” could just be substituted and the reader would get the exact same meaning. No amount of tapdancing on your part is going to change that.
I can’t help but notice you spout typical PC Revisionist dogma.
Sure I know. Its what you’ve been doing. You accused me of making an inaccurate statement...of misrepresenting what he said. I didn’t. When I challenged you to show us what the difference was, you couldn’t provide anything substantive.
I understand attempts to tapdance and weasel - that’s what you’re trying to do here. You, I and everybody else knows what the myth of the virtuous North is. Sorry, but we’re just not going to go down that particular rabbit hole for 5 days in a row back and forth 50 times like I know you’re dying to. No matter how hard you PC Revisionists try to spin, the facts just don’t support you. Sorry.
“That only possibly works if you don’t count slaves which belonged to Lee’s wife.”
That is an interesting comment.
Didn’t Grant’s wife claim to own slaves? Until when?
“And don’t barf up that Forrest quote again. Even if he actually said it he doesn’t mention equality.”
If President Lincoln is to be believed, Thomas Jefferson, a southerner, was a proponent of equality for all men.
What next? Will you claim that since 1776 northerners were strong supporters of equal right for women, too?
We have not always seen eye-to-eye but you have been unflinching about your research on this matter. I like that.
The states granted limited and specific powers to the federal govt which they, the states, created. Learn some history, it would help to know some in these troubling times.
The slaves did not belong to Martha Lee. They were the property of her father, George Washington Parke Custis.
In his will he did not leave them to Martha. They were to be freed by executor of the will (R.E.Lee), once the debts and legacies of the estate were satisfied. But they had to be sold no later than 5 years after Custis’ death.
Julia Grant did not own the 4 slaves that served her and the General. They would remain the property of Fredrick Dent, her father until Missouri outlawed slavery in 1865.
“But they had to be sold no later than 5 years” is incorrect, they had to be freed no later than 5 years IAW the terms of the Custis will.
Your desperation is showing. If you don't have one why not admit it?
What next? Will you claim that since 1776 northerners were strong supporters of equal right for women, too?
I leave crazy claims to you.
And while we're on the subject, there's a considerable amount of evidence that the Forrest quote if apocryphal. None of his biographers make mention of it and there is no mention of the "International Order of Pole Bearers Association", given the name it seems to be a precursor to the "Department of Redundancy Department", outside of the alleged Forrest speech.
No.
First of all:
DoodleDawg: "George Fisher was the second largest slave owner in Delaware and was also a Republican congressman during the Lincoln Administration."
Some sources claim George Fisher was "the second largest slave owner in Delaware" but the New York Times did not.
And the George P. Fisher elected to the US House of Representatives in 1860 was a Wilmington lawyer and Unionist or "People's Party", not Republican.
In Congress Fisher supported Lincoln's compensated emancipation proposal, but the Delaware legislature rejected it, by one vote.
DoodleDawg: "Benjamin Burton, the largest Delaware slave owner was a prominent local Republican."
Benjamin Burton holding 28 slaves is said to have been Delaware's largest slave-holder, and was friendly to Lincoln's proposal for compensated emancipation.
Some sources do identify him as a Republican, but the New York Times article mentioning him does not.
In 1860 Delaware split its votes among all four political parties, with the most votes going to Southern Democrat Breckinridge.
So it seems most likely that Breckinridge or Unionist John Bell would be the choice of Delaware's very few slave-holders.
By the way, our Lost Causers have raised a fuss about Lincoln's supposed support for the proposed Corwin Amendment, but what Lincoln truly did support at that time was his own proposal for compensated emancipation in Union slave states.
DoodleDawg: "D'Souza's claim is BS."
I'd say we have to allow for some ambiguity in who, exactly, qualified as Republicans at that time, especially in Border States like Maryland & Delaware.
Lincoln himself tried to win votes from such non-Republicans by running under the National Union party banner in 1864.
NOT!!
100% of Republicans in that day favored abolition in their own states, though very few wanted to override the Constitution's recognition of slavery in the South.
And Lincoln's abolitionist credentials were certified early on by his support for a plan of compensated emancipation in Union slave-states.
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.