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 ...
Proposed constitutional amendment protecting slavery. Lincoln supported it. He mentions it in his first inaugural address.
There was an actual constitutional clause in the body of the US Constitution that protected slavery. It was Article IV, section 2.
There was no such protection.
That's what they thought initially. After a few months of facing a steadily declining import traffic, they realized they would lose more if they didn't.
Does it mention 200 million dollars per year in lost income for New York/Washington? (you know, the same deep state/crony capitalists who run Washington power today?)
One would think that the Declaration of Independence would completely clarify the issue for all concerned, seeing as how it was the basis of our own independence from the United Kingdom.
Probably just as bad. Pseudo Aristocrats always want to draw money and power to themselves.
The Union was like a balloon and it is no longer a Union if you can unilaterally leave it. That is a mere Confederation which the Constitution rose above. But even that document stated the Union was perpetual.
I can’t believe you believe the Civil War was of the same nature as the Revolution. Of all the weak, vacuous arguments that is the most weak and vacuous. There was no union in GB it was a KINGDOM; no colony had joined the Kingdom voluntarily. None had any representation in Parliament. Not only did the Southern states have representation they had controlled the government until Lincoln and the Republicans came on the scene.
How ever did we get free of England then? Last I heard, it was a “perpetual union” too, and having lasted a thousand years longer than the US.
This clown would at the least support Trump which is the most important thing as today’s Supreme Court rulings clearly shows. A Democrat would certainly vote against confirmation of any good Justice.
The Constitution protected slavery. It was designed from the beginning to do so. Use whatever verbiage you think applies to it intending to be a permanent part of the US Constitution, but at least recognize that it was.
The Flag of Slavery was for "Four Score and Seven Years", the American flag.
Did you read Article IV, section 2?
Think about it a minute. Plenty of secessionists, like Louis Wigfall, wanted an agrarian society that would concentrate on producing agricultural produce and not industrialize. Even those who did look forward to developing a different kind of economy wouldn't have spoken of a "balanced economy that was proving so successful in the North." If they did talk in that 20th century way, they might not have been secessionists.
Davis never mentioned slavery in his inaugural address.
Of course not, because the eyes of the world were on him. His inaugural would have been taken down by foreign reporters and diplomats and circulated in foreign capitals. Look at what Davis said in his farewell speech in the Senate and you will learn how important slavery and race were to Jefferson Davis and (in his view) to his fellow Mississippians.
It was clear that the North supported neither equality nor emancipation. If anybody had any doubts about that, Lincoln made it quite clear that he was not in favor of emancipation.
It doesn't matter, slaveowners thought that if free soilers like Lincoln ran the government, slavery was doomed in the long run.
In fact the North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Yet this failed to bring the original 7 seceding states back in. Obviously slavery was not their primary concern.
The American Revolution was about taxation without representation. Can we all agree about that?
If Britain offered at the end of 1776 or the beginning of 1777 or even later to stop taxing the colonists or to give them seats in Parliament, would that have put an end to the Revolution? Would the Continental Army and Congress conclude that they'd gotten what they wanted and give up on independence?
Of course not. They already decided that they wanted their own country. They'd already given up on Britain and Britain's promises. So it was with the secessionists of 1861. Whatever Lincoln or Congress offered it was too late. Is there really any argument about that?
Obviously not. No one felt the deaths more than Lincoln.
He announced the Emancipation Proclamation as a MILITARY aid and the coalition he led might not have held together had it been announced sooner. It only freed slaves in the states in rebellion not in Maryland, Missouri or Kentucky. He was a brilliant politician.
I have read Nevins but just recently read Foote. You are right about his feelings about the War but it doesn’t interfere with his descriptions or truths.
After all the boy was born in Greenville, Mississippijust down the road from my boyhood home. My ancestors were from Mississippi and Alabama, in fact my maternal grandmother was named “Alabama”. Of course we called her “Bama.”
Yeah I am a “left wing” as the Founders.
The list would be irrelevant and stupid like all the arguments of the Secess lovers.
We left the Union of the Crowns. It remained a Union after we left it. Our justification for leaving it was the natural law assertion that people have a right to independence from a government they felt no longer served their interest.
There was no union in GB it was a KINGDOM
It's proper name is the "United Kingdom." It was created by the Union of the Crowns, and it was in fact a Union.
Now if you are arguing that the United Kingdom was an "involuntary" Union, then I will point out that ours started out as a voluntary Union, but after "Four score and seven years" it certainly ended up as an involuntary Union.
Show me the United States Congress authorized legislation that subsidized the New York shipping industry.
Packets operated out of New York because it was the best port on the Atlantic seaboard, with the larges capacity for shipping.
There was absolutely no reason a British ship would not call on say Charleston or Wilmington, if the cargo’s owner requested that as the debarkation point. There is nothing in the 1817 Navigation act that precluded any foreign ship from calling on any US port with a cargo originating from another country.
In the years before the war. Almost all harbor improvements to Southern ports was paid for by the United States Government. Your fantasy scenario of millions being poured into Southern port facilities is just that a fantasy.
You mean they would have been a little upset at a "bait and switch"?
He was a brilliant politician.
Too clever by half. Had he not stolen the nomination from Seward, we likely never would have had a civil war, or such an overbearing Federal government.
Well sure! I've long noticed that things people agree with are "brilliant!" while things they disagree with are "rubbish!"
Creating the state of West Virginia without securing the consent of Virginia's legislature, is a clear violation of constitutional law. But that "oath of office" only means what he wants it to mean.
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.