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 ...
“This historical ignorance is typical of PC Revisionists.”
These are liberal bigots we have here on FR that hate the south but support the war that held them into the union.
just passed into Louisiana on I-20
Can’t post much but check out SOBs starstrucl rant
By his logic we should just strike the tent here
None of us worthy of criticizing GOPe diety
And how does he assume to know how much I’ve contributed to conservatism
True conservatives don’t vilify the nations most conservative bloc and their ancestry constantly simply to virtue signal or pimp simplistic historical perspective
It certainly would. When it was determined to be no longer economically profitable, suddenly people would declare they had been persuaded by moral arguments against it!
The Civil War was inevitable. The Confederacy could never have won, given its disadvantage of resources, manpower, and war materiel.
If Lincoln had stopped at the same percentages of loss as King George III, they could have won. Had George III been as determined as Lincoln, The Colonies couldn't have won independence either. To say the South couldn't have won is easy in the hindsight of Lincolns absolute determination, but at the time, nobody would have guessed that he was willing to sacrifice so much blood and treasure to subjugate other people, and many thought the states wouldn't sit by and allow him to do it.
The end result would have been the same, no way to permanently avoid it.
Slavery could have ended peaceably as it did in most of the world. But talking about the ending of slavery is irrelevant. When the war began, there was no interest by any side in ending slavery.
The notion that the war had to do with ending slavery is after the fact propaganda meant to justify all the destruction and loss of life.
When the war began, it was about control of the Slave produced money, and both sides wanted the slaves to continue making that money. The fight was over who was going to collected it, either New York and Washington DC, or the Southern states where it was produced.
Of course the Northern states wanted to ignore that constitutional requirement without actually passing an amendment to repeal it. They wanted to pretend it didn't exist or that it meant something different from what it actually meant. Same liberal "living constitution" crap that they still try to pull now.
He’s correct according to Historians. Of course we did not learn this in public school.
It was an economics war and a war on the expansion out West.
Slavery was an auxiliary issue.
The South wanted to succeed and the North said no. That’s why the South calls it the war of Northern Aggression.
The Union of the Crowns (United Kingdom) was not "destroyed" when 13 colonies left it, and the Union of the Colonies would not have been destroyed either. To claim it would have been is just hyperventilating.
Secondly, the right to leave the Union (as articulated in the Declaration of Independence) is not conditional. It doesn't matter what someone's reasons for leaving are, they have the right to do so regardless of their reasons.
You are not the moral police, you don't have some God given moral authority to decide that rights are only valid if they meet with your moral approval.
The only thing required for them to exercise the right of independence was the belief that the existing government no longer served their interests. They so decided in orderly elections, and they chose to leave.
The rest is just screeching from the people who were losing the money that came from their export production.
So a Union was created for the greater benefit can be unilaterally abrogated just because a ruling class of a state decides they don’t like it anymore. I don’t think so Sherlock, maybe in FantasyLand but not in political reality.
Why would you and all the others try and justify the unjustifiable? What is your true reason to adopt such an intellectually vacant position?
No one is “vilifying” anyone or anything other than the nutcases vilifying Lincoln, a man who actually took his oath of office seriously. Particularly the “conservative bloc”, whatever that is.
No one is attacking anyone’s ancestry. My ancestors believed this crap and fought for the South. And they were wrong.
Look fool my father and mothers family are still living in the South and I loved living there until I graduated HS. My childhood was idyllic.
Whatever I am or am not no one in their right mind would call me “left wing.”
It is, however, pretty funny, and shows just how insane the Neo-Cornfederates are.
I have read and participated in many useless threads trying to give the Rebels a leg to stand on. I got tired of watching Idiots On Parade and moved on to the important topics of the day in particular the attempted fascist coup against our president (well mine anyway.)
I give the Cornfederacy all the credit it is due - almost none. It was folly from beginning to end and almost destroyed our nation. There is no hate on my part, it is part of history. I mean REAL history.
“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.”
the Navigation act of 1817 requires cargos shipped between American ports be carried on American flagged ships. If a cargo was to be shipped from Boston to New Orleans, it had to be carried by an American flagged ship. That was what the 1817 Navigation act required. A British flagged ship carrying cargo from Birmingham England to the U.S. was free to go to any port in the United States that the ship’s captain chose.
The reason why New York, Boston, or Philadelphia handled more ships is because they had the capacity of handle large numbers of ships. New York’s capacity equaled the combined capacities of Norfolk, Charleston, Mobile and New Orleans.
Boston’s capacity was not to far behind New York, and was greater than any of the Southern ports. Philadelphia could also berth more ships than any of the Southern ports.
Each day at anchor, waiting for a berth to off load costs the ships owner money.
It’s better to not encourage RINOs by voting for them.
Our Founders thoughts of what the Union is is extremely important since they came from the principle instigators of the CC and the Constitution itself.
The Federalist Papers had no legal significance, either. They provided the basis for understanding the document. John Marshall said that when he approached any case the first thing he did was consult the Federalist to see how to think about it.
These essays (the greatest political thought of their and our day) were written by a couple of random guys named James Madison and Alexander Hamilton with a couple by John Jay. Hamilton wrote two thirds of them. George Washington believed the same thing about secession and explicitly warned about it.
There are plenty of implicit supports for an indissoluble, perpetual union. The Articles stated that clearly and its’ child, the Constitution made that indissoluble Union even more perfect.
You can’t even get a divorce without legal sanction (unless you live in a Islamic state), how much more necessary is it to dissolve a perpetual Union?
“When the situation was ripe he made slavery the next issue.”
Meaning, after 600,000 men were safely buried?
Spoken like a true blue left-wing bigot.
A second good source is Allan Nevins 7 volume history of the Civil War. Foote’s work (which I find excellent) does have a slight Southern bias. Understandable, he was from the South. Nevins’ work is as good as Foote, but with a slight Northern bias.He was from Illinois.
Giving virtually monopoly powers to the subsidized shipping industries of New York. Virtually all the packet shipping lines of the US operated from New York.
If a cargo was to be shipped from Boston to New Orleans, it had to be carried by an American flagged ship.
Making it utterly pointless for European ships to sail anywhere but New York or Boston or Philadelphia. It cost the same to do business in South Carolina as New York, but New York was 800 miles closer. That dynamic changes dramatically when taxes get reduced from 40-50% down to 13%. Suddenly there is a clear profit motive to sail to Norfolk or Charleston.
The reason why New York, Boston, or Philadelphia handled more ships is because they had the capacity of handle large numbers of ships.
Capitalization of the Southern ports would have remedied that, and with additional profits to be made by sailing to Southern ports instead of Northeastern ones, they would have done so, thereby depriving New York of most of it's traffic.
Likely I have read far more about history and the Civil War than you, certainly enough to know that there was no amendment protecting slavery. What is its number?
What in Lincoln’s Inaugural Address contradicts anything I have said?
You don’t even know what a “revisionist” is in spite of the rhetoric of the crackpots supplying your ideas.
Gee, Black men owning other Black men. What a shock! Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Like Stephen Colbert with his "clown nose on", "clown nose" off trick. Lincoln insisted his oath of officer required him to do the things he wanted to do, but it did not require him to do the things he did not want to do.
I gave someone a list of a few examples upthread somewhere. Maybe it was you. I forget.
Enshrinement is a religious term. Something is enshrined when it is elevated to a place of worship.
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.