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 ...
The Democrats were as wrong as they are today.
And there is no right to destroy the Union because you fear your slaves will be taken from them, none.
Beats me, but anyone thinking the War of Northern Aggression was anything but States rights is a public school idiot.
Were did the USA get the right to force a State to stay in voluntary union??
The fight was to preserve the Union and had almost nothing to do with financial concerns.
As you note many Northern businessmen knew they would lose if a war was fought.
Just like today the larger cities were pro-Confederate.
So you don’t support President Trump.
Like many here Trump had a lot of opposition. I would say that, like Rush, most supported Cruz.
Don’t call out Rush because he didn’t think Trump could win.
I have to say it made me furious and I had a pause in listening to him.
If you didn’t support Reconstruction you must have been very unhappy to have Lincoln assassinated. Didn’t many ex-confederates say that had lost its “best friend” when he was killed? They were right.
Your “research” is woefully lacking.
Read Shelby Foote’s three volume history of the Civil War for some truth. It is exhaustible fact and detail. It is gigantic (3000) pages but lays the War and the reasons for it.
There was no constitutional amendment protecting slavery. Utter nonsense but typical of the Neo-Rebs.
” If you want to say that there is no right to secession, then Virginia could not have left the Union.”
Which of course was Lincoln’s position right from the start. He argued that there was no secession and that the CSA didn’t exist.
This is why he always refused to meet with CSA peace delegations. To do so would be to recognize the CSA. It’s also why Lincoln didn’t ask Congress for a declaration of war. He was suppressing rebellion, not waging war against another nation.
Lincoln’s position was that he was dealing with a Whiskey Rebellion writ large. “Combinations” had managed to seize control of entire states. But those states had never left the union because secession wasn’t possible.
Charles Francis Adams Jr. discussed the legality of secession in his circa 1900 “Shall Cromwell Have a Statue?”. He concluded that both sides were right. That the original post-Revolutionary conception of the union allowed for it. But that sometime later, maybe around the 1820s, a view had grown that the union was perpetual. In neither case was this explicitly spelled out in law. Adams Jr was the son of John Quincy Adams, the great-grandson of John Adams, and had been a colonel in the Union Army. So he if anything he was arguing against interest by stating the argument for secession was valid. As was the argument against.
It was called the Corwin Amendment - feel free to look it up. Also feel free to actually read Lincoln’s inaugural address.
This historical ignorance is typical of PC Revisionists.
Their ratification spoke for them.
The only “States Right” that the South cared about was the “right” to own slaves.
Why don’t you tell us what other “right” was threatened.
...and so it goes, D.C. continues it’s heavy hand on the states even to this very day.
Oh how I wonder how things would have been if our capital were Richmond.
No country gave the rebellion diplomatic recognition.
You would be arguing in German or Russian amidst a gaggle of weak, easily influenced states
lol...perhaps, but being a Texan, kinda hard to believe we’d sit still for all that nonsense.
If a state cannot secede is your position then Virginia never legally seceded in the first place. If this is the case, the state of West Virginia would not have been allowed to stand.
“Why don’t you tell us what other “right” was threatened.”
Why don’t you read the hundreds of threads on FR on the subject instead of being a bigoted left-wing hatful idiot??
If you hate the south so much, why do you support the war that kept it???
“There was no constitutional amendment protecting slavery”
Didn’t need one.
Anthony Johnson, black man, sued in Virginia court in 1655 to establish the legal precedent of slavery by holding John Casor, another black man, as a slave.
Imagine that. A black man started slavery by suing to enslave a fellow black man,
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.