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 ...
Marx favored abolition of slaves and supported anyone toward that aim. He didn’t GAS about the United States or Abraham Lincoln - only his agenda.
You can foolishly feeeeeeel that this means that he and Lincoln were besties but that says more about you than it does him.
Right... they are not looking for an intellectual answer... they are looking for a sound byte
FUX
I think we just outed another Clinton and Obama man.
You equate Trump supporters with the KKK and support Karl Marx. You also start off with an immediate personal attack.
I have seen your kind many times before.
Bingo!
You and I see it! Know the way it should be handled!
Questions like that in a public forum are a bright pink bear trap with glitter and spangles!
Want to discuss the nuances of the “War Between the States”. Join a Civil War Roundtable or go to grad school in Civil War history or political philosophy specializing in 19th century American Thought. Don’t do it while your running for office! Many of those listening are not your friends! It’s a campaign not a PolySci bull session!
There was no secession in either occasion. The American Revolutionaries openly rebelled as a last recourse to oppression by the crown.
The Dhimmicrat slavers of 1860 rebelled as a first recourse because they lost an election - just like the Dhimmicrats of today.
Don’t be an idiot (oops - too late).
Stewart is right, but people in VA have already made up their minds on this race probably years earlier.
ROTFLMAO
And why’d they want to secede? To preserve slave power. The modern day analogue would be corporations and liberals seeking to secede over preserving cheap illegal labor/illegal votes.
Corey should be talking about issues that are GD relevant to the lives of his prospective constituents not making a monkey out of himself spewing nonsense.
Stop twisting yourselves into pretzels with horsecrap like “it wasn’t about slavery” and let the Confederacy die already.
It was a teachable moment that Stewart didn’t try hard enough to win. He’s still correct however.
There are a lot benefits to secession that only a Southerner can understand. Breaking free of the New England power structure and separating from the haughty self righteous puritans being some of them.
Seems like there's good consulting money to be made, just to coach these hapless candidates how to answer basic "gotcha" questions.
Twinkle twinkle little star. What you say is what you are.
It is sort of fun to descend into name calling. It doesn’t take much thinking. It doesn’t accomplish much tho.
“It was about slavery.”
If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
“The issue was slavery and its perpetuation.”
If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
The problem is that he is right just not politically correct.
He’s absolutely correct. It wasn’t about slavery. Anybody who has read Lincoln’s Inaugural Address or who has read about the Corwin Amendment can see for himself that the Lincoln administration and the Northern dominated Congress were prepared to enshrine protections of slavery in the constitution by express constitutional amendment effectively forever.
That’s simply a fact whether anybody likes that or not. The Congress passed with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority and the president signed the Corwin Amendment and Lincoln openly endorsed it. He even got multiple states to ratify it. The Southern states could have signalled their acceptance of this amendment as satisfying their concerns had their real concerns been about slavery. They weren’t. They rejected slavery forever and pursued independence.
Mmm hmm, sure. Yeah, that really unfair system that inflated Congressional representation for the South by counting 60% of the non-voting slaves and forced Northern states to round up and send back escaped slaves. That and tariffs (which you like now but didn’t like back then).
A bunch of rich slave owners wanting to preserve their power is why it happened, period. You play make beleive if you tell yourself otherwise. Protecting slave owners interests was the CSA’s ONLY reason for existence. If you still wanna wax nostalgic on the CSA more power to you, but you don’t get to deny facts. No one started a war over not liking GD Massholes.
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.