Posted on 06/25/2018 3:28:41 PM PDT by Mariner
Republican Senate nominee Corey Stewart said that he doesnt 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.TVs Rising, Stewart, who recently won the GOP nomination in the Virginia Senate race, said that not all parts of Virginias history are pretty.
But he said he doesnt associate slavery with the war.
I dont at all. If you look at the history, thats not what it meant at all, and I dont 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 didnt 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 doesnt 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 many?
Memphis took down Gen Nathan Bedford Forest statue and other Confederate ones. State ruled it illegal, they don’t care, that it was a double grave site. All they left were the pedestal and graves, and that was vandalized with spray paint.
Memphis is 1 of those NO GO UNARMED CITIES.
“The north had been moving to an industrialized economy while the south had been content with selling high priced cotton to England and France.”
One thing that history teaches us, is that nations fall because they fail to adapt to changing technologies and refuse to modernize. In this case, the South could have industrialized, but elected not to industrialize.
“So, to answer your question, the South couldnt support their war effort because the North, rather strategically, rushed to capture Southern transportation systems for over-seas sales.”
History also teaches us that if a nation at war is so weak that it is unable to secure its transportation systems, that nation loses their war.
“First thing Lincoln did was to throw up a blockade that would stop trade between the South and Europe.”
That’s a proven war time strategy.
Unfortunately I seriously doubt Stewart will drop out. Most likely we will getting Todd Akin redux, where his useful idiot fan club rallies around him and insists that ANY replacement is a "RINO" so only the current candidate is acceptable. Then their guy goes down in flames in November against a marxist RAT.
Hope I'm wrong.
Ironically, Stewart is a born and bred Minnesotan, so he's one of those "damnyankee transplants who moves down here and tells us how we should run our state" that you guys are always complaining about.
I kinda wish he had "stayed out of VA politics". But since he didn't, the marxist Democrat will be re-election without breaking a sweat thanks to Stewart's crappy campaign.
Ironically, Stewart is a born and bred Minnesotan, so he's one of those "damnyankee transplants who moves down here and tells us how we should run our state" that you guys are always complaining about.
I kinda wish he had "stayed out of VA politics". But since he didn't, the marxist Democrat will be re-elected without breaking a sweat thanks to Stewart's crappy campaign.
You are correct on the dredging and the construction of light houses, I think the post roads were a wash though (If I recall correctly.)
The tariff of 1828 should answer your question. We’re talking about nearly a 40% tax on imported goods! The Souths economy was almost fully fueled by the sale of cotton and other material to France, England, Spain, and in return the import of cheaper goods. The Northern states sought this tariff in order to force the purchasing of materials and products from northern industries.
So did congress appropriate federal money to subsidize northern industry? Absolutely.
Railroads, roadways, canals - there were undoubtedly southern tax dollars used to build these. Remember this is the same tariff which led to the nullification crisis which I argue was the beginning of the Civil War.
Now it can be argued, well wait, didn’t the federal government sell land grants to get money to build the transcontinental railroad? Yes, they did. But there were lines built before this, and they were funded by taxes and private enterprise.
In fairness, I have spent quite a substantial amount of time looking for legislation passed by congress to appropriate federal funds to subsidize the northern industries but I can’t find any appropriation bills that I can access during that time at all. I can find rough amounts during that meeting of congress but I cannot find delegated amounts and what for. The latest I can find with that much detail is 1998. Therefore I cannot answer your final question, yet.
I must stress again that I acknowledge that slavery was a component of the Civil War, I just don’t believe it was the driving factor.
Apparently they knew nothing about US History.
Allow me to repair your "edited" quote.
"The most conservative men I know from the World War II generation have almost to a man told me that they believe the Civil War had little to do with slavery and everything to do with Abraham Lincoln being a lousy federalist totalitarian."
And give you some advice. Guys like you who make a living being know-it-alls on the internet should avoid slandering WWII veteran American heroes who are personal friends and mentors of mine. I'd blow up ten thousand of you to save one of them for one more day.
“Some say the ice caps are melting and that polar bears will soon be extinct.”
You are placing Lincoln in the ranks of kooks.
To any end?!? Lincoln was a totalitarian federalist bully and the beneficial side-effect of the war being that slavery was abolished was the PR campaign that he jumped on.
The first state that has the guts to secede from this unholy union will be the one I move to.
I put my God fearing hand over my heart every time I recite The Pledge Of Allegiance, but I never utter the word "indivisible" while doing so.
Thanks.
“didnt the federal government sell land grants to get money to build the transcontinental railroad? Yes, they did. But there were lines built before this, and they were funded by taxes and private enterprise”.
The Government gave the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Federal land for the Transcontinental railroad. In addition to the right of way, each railroad received title to every other section on both sides of the right of way. Do not believe any direct Federal appropriation for funds went to either rail road. Since the 1840s the Government had granted federal land to railroads for their right of ways.
This was available to Southern railroads, just as it was to Northern railroads. The standard method of financing railroad construction in both the North and the South was for the company building the railroad to sell stock in the venture or issue bonds for the funds needed for construction. Prior to the war the Federal Government did not give money to railroads unless it was for hauling Government cargo. During the war, the USMRR built railroads, bridges, trestles and repaired damaged tracks. But this was strictly a wartime endevor
Interesting. The Marines I know are smarter than that.
The evidence supports it. The South produced between 73% and 84% of all European money, goods and services imported into the United States. US law (among others, the Navigation act of 1817) caused those imports to arrive in New York instead of the areas in the South where the trade goods were produced to pay for them.
As all of Washington DC's income came from taxing imports, 73-84% of that tax money depended upon those Southern exports. When the European trade shifted south to Norfolk, Charleston, Mobil and New Orleans, that 200 million dollars per year in 1860 trade value was going to move to those ports, and New York (and the Washington tax collectors in New York) were going to be deprived of that money.
For one thing, in the buildup to the Civil War, there was an animated national debate over whether any State even had the right to secede from the Union.
One would think that they could look "four score and seven years" into the past for the valid answer to that question.
Your other points are worthy of further reply, but I think these two points to which I responded deserve superior consideration to any other remaining points.
No it isn't, because they were too ashamed to admit it, and so they used euphemistic terminology to describe the same thing.
much less enshrined in it.
And there you are wrong. Despite their refusal to use the word, they described the same meaning accurately enough to discern they were specifically referring to slavery. They just couched it in less offensive descriptive language.
Article IV, section 2.
You can’t enshrine something you can’t even say aloud. That’s just (typically) idiotic of you.
Times may be changing but Virginia isn't. Enjoy your Senator Kaine.
I just listened to him
You sure learn how prevalent this is in GOPe groupthink
Rush has always been GOP grinder monkey
He never ever totally calls them out like ironically another south basher Levin does
I wont listen to him for a while Im sure hell be fine
Im 24/7 Ill write the show when I have time he should at least get feedback
Ill even be polite
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.