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 ...
Most don't even realize that the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln bounced around the idea of recolonizing the black back into Africa and or the Caribbean. He and others believed they would have a difficult time assimilating into American society.
Lincoln's letter to Greeley:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
The whole notion that the war of Northern aggression was based on slavery is revisionist history. A farce.
I never said that secession was an impossibility. Just that there was no enumerated right to it. And especially no right to unilateral secession.
Yup. That’s about the size of it.
Several excerpts.
The vast majority are liberals with an agenda and hardened inflexible preconceived notions on the subject
It is the actions of the south to protect their economic interests ( trade and owning humans) that initiated it. So the motivation of the north is not in question.
Since 1776 everything that was done, the declaration, the constitution and new states admissions indicated the south’s fear they would lose their slaves. The western territories after Louisiana opened up the possibility the free states would pass the slave states in number making the south “subservient” to the west and north, especially in the senate..
you don’t have to be Jefferson Davis to figure out the south didn’t want to lose slavery because new states were coming into the union.
Look at the motivation of wilkes booth and the statements of the people who planned to kill Lincoln at the baltimore train station. They wern’e going to kioll hoim because his beard was scraggly.
Actually "most" do. And history would suggest that he may have been on to something.
According to Lincoln, the war was about preserving the union and he was right.
But the number one political issue was slavery and had been for years.
It instituted a draft before Lincoln did.
...
And Lincoln had to deal with draft riots.
You still have not explained how West Virginia somehow was allowed to secede from Virginia and STILL be recognized as it’s own state today. There either is or isn’t a right to secede. The fact that West Virginia exist pretty much says that secession is legal. Isn’t this correct?
Yep.
The northern dominated congress passed a resolution explicitly saying they were not fighting over slavery.
The Lincoln administration offered and the Northern dominated Congress passed with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority, the Corwin amendment which would have expressly protected slavery. This would have been irrevocable without the consent of the then 15 slaveholding states. It would have taken 45 states voting for a new amendment to overturn it and 45+15=60 which is 10 more states than are even in the country today. ie it would have been effectively irrevocable.
Everybody understood that. The Southern states could have had slavery forever if only they had been willing to return and face the high tariffs and unequal federal government expenditures.
They weren’t. They turned down the Corwin Amendment. Case closed.
They all were bilateral - just not the same outcome desired by both parties.
The three most famous men Lincoln picked the lead his Armies were
1) Robert E Lee....slave owner
2) George McClellan...who said slavery was perfectly legal
3) U.S. Grant.....slave owner
Strange picks for a man who want’s to end slavery!!!!
And you were doing so good until the last sentence when you have to go to All neoyankee you’ve course because y’all are just better than us
You do realize we are now living the Reconstruction end game now nationwide and technically for western civilization as a whole
Limbaugh today was illustrating that his knowledge of civil war history is at the level of a comic book edited by nikki haley
No state shall keep troops or ships or enter into external compacts?
I think you mean Section 8, paragraph a bunch, about calling forth the militia to prevent insurrection? The issue here is that it’s not an insurrection - that’s when a small group is rebelling against the legitimate authority. What actually happened was that that same legitimate authority (the state) no longer recognized a higher authority (FedGov) it ceded some powers to. It simply revoked giving those powers to the US, and instead reclaimed them for the state / ceded them then to the Confederacy.
What's sweet about that is that it's the same reasoning that Lord North and George III used when they sent in the army to take care of the traitors trying to leave the United Kingdom. All the more fun when you know the Dunmore's and Philipsburg proclamations are.
“fixated on slavery”
It takes two to tango. There are many misconceptions by readers of as you say a 158 year old conflict.
In fact the debate is much older by about 200 years at least.
I have an Iowa history book that mentions my direct ancestors, published in 1878. There is much discussion of slavery and states rights, the wealth of the southern planters being heavily taxed, etc. But the book acknowledges that active debate had been going on for many years.
The group of writers of this book state that it was the firing on Fort Sumter that got every one fighting mad.
There was two sovereignties involved here. There was no conditional ratification, no right to revoke and no right to seize federal property. This was settled in a letter from Madison to Hamilton during the NY state ratification convention. NY was holding out for the right to leave and Madison held that it was unacceptable. What would be sufficient grounds to leave, just about anything?
The Articles of Confederation were superseded by the “more perfect union” of the federation.
Texas had no special rights when it joined the union, that, like most of these issues have long been settled and hardly worth the time to discuss them when so much more important things are in play.
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.