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 ...
No slavery, no State’s Rights issue. I used to believe like you, until I read
Alexander Stephens’ (Confederate VP) speech on the reason for secession. Even though many of the soldiers and military leaders fought for states rights, the political leadership seceded over slavery.
The Corwin Amendment was a "Hail Mary Pass" -- a last minute attempt to keep the country together by guaranteeing the continued existence of slavery in the slave states.
But it wasn't enough for slaveowners who now wanted their own country.
What would you do to save the country from falling apart?
Wouldn't you be willing to compromise to prevent a civil war?
Gosh, he's one of those "damnyankee transplants" whose "trying to tell us born and bred southrons what to do with OUR state" then. Ironically, he ALSO is a politician from "Northern Virginia" (Prince William County to be exact), and thus "not a REAL Virginian" ;-)
Stewart sounds like a pi$$ poor GOP candidate, either E.W. Jackson OR Nick Freitas (his opponents in the primary) would have run better general election campaigns. But I consider VA to be a solid RAT state now (most of my fellow FReepers are still in denial about that. Yes, there are still pockets of strongly conservative areas, but the state OVERALL is Safe Rat now) so I can't blame Kaine's inevitable re-election on this goofball.
To my knowledge, Mosby never rose above the rank of Colonel.
Fine fighter. We needed more like him.
If the CW was merely about slavery then why didn’t the Border States succeed?
Those “conservative” men were just wrong and they believed a myth. A conservative defends the Union and its constitution.
Trump is the modern day Lincoln ready to do what is necessary to keep America safe in spite of incredible opposition from the Democrats, the media and even his own party.
Jefferson Davis had the same kind of row to hoe and had to jetison States’ Rights to have even a sliver of a chance to win the war.
In the future Trump will be considered in the league of Washington and Lincoln.
“No slavery, no State’s Rights issue.”
If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
I said when he won the primary, he’d lose. Setting out to do so early. What a friggin idiot.
The Civil War wasn’t about slavery like the gulf wars we not about oil.
None of this attempt at apologia works.
The Northern dominated Congress and the Lincoln administration supported slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Lincoln endorsed it in his inaugural address. If anybody had any question as to whether secession or the war were “about” slavery, that fact answers it decisively. It was not. The North was quite prepared to accept slavery.
The original 7 seceding states on the other hand, rejected protections of slavery that would have been impossible to overturn for many generations (including right down to the present day). Instead they opted for independence.
Looking at those facts, one can only conclude it was not “about” slavery.
The Constitution can be changed only by amendment.
In order for a state to legally leave the Union it would at the least require law sanction.
Most of the Southern states were created by the federal government and it had property in all of them.
There is a free online video course given by hillsdale college that covers this very thing. Best to watch it.
The Emancipation Proclamation was signed on January 1st, 1863. LINK
It seems to me an argument could be made that if the war had been about slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been issued early on after the war started.
I have read that the war had grown unpopular, and funds were running so short that Lincoln faced not being able fund his war effort, and that was why he offered up the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863.
Seems a bit of an afterthought in desperate times.
I've never quite been convinced the war was as much about slavery as dynamics surrounding states rights. Of course the two were probably intertwined as well.
The Civil War is something folks will discuss with vigor for the life of the Republic.
When folks carp about slavery and why it wasn't addressed at the inception of our nation, the Civil war is worthy of mention regarding states rights and slavery.
It is crystal clear that if Slavery had been addressed at our founding, there would be no United States today, at least not as we traditionally think of it.
The framers of the Confederate Constitution make SURE to declare slavery was an eternal "right" that could NOT be abolished though. Sheer coincidence, I'm sure.
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.
Argue with Madison he said otherwise. Check the concept of “conditional ratification”.
The Vice President of the CSA said the CW was about Slavery.
By golly, you’re right. I looked it up, and Mosby’s highest rank was colonel. I suppose now I’ll have to rename one of my dogs. (One is General Sheridan. The other is General Mosby.)
A proud and good intentioned fool who should know he can’t win that argument, no matter what he produces to defend it.
Little facts are defeated by large sentiments.
All anyone has to say is that if slavery was no issue at all with the Civil War then why are many of the first major acts following the war acts that ended slavery. If he were right, then the nation would have allowed slavery to continue in southern states until they ended it on their own. That was not going to happen.
His problem is that men fight for their homeland, looking less at the politics. But why the fight they are put into is not always honorable and does come from political policies which can be outside of and beyond “defending the homeland”.
I think most Japanese soldiers believed they were fighting honorably for their homeland, but the world believes they were fighting for Japanese imperialism. Who is correct? Both are, which is why the Virginia GOP politician has started an argument he cannot win. I hope the voters look past it.
And people on FR wondered why the Republican party said no to supporting him. Why everyone that knows him or is acquainted with him, we think he’s a total a$$h013. He needs to go now and not taint the Republican, the Trump Republican ticket. Good riddance.
The President of the CSA....the one who had actual power....said it was not about slavery.
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.