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 ...
Which ought to demonstrate how little he’s learned from Walter. If it was golf he would have paid attention. There’s a lot of things that he knows nothing about and this is one of them. My bet is that he has been studying at the feet of that historical guru, Dinesh D’Souza.
I recall that most but not all south bashers here......Mac truck and rockrr being exceptions were in addition nevertrumpers till it was a fait accompli
Same in the media ...folks who crow neoconfederate goblins at every call .....like Beck and Levin and Kristol and Goldberg and Lowery and Erickson and so on were nevertrumpers too
Again no surprise
They think vilifying my ancestors will score points with blacks and make the GOPe more inclusive
So therefore they do this to America’s most solid social conservatives heritage whilst never and I mean never reflecting on their own...they play the same game they decry in the left
Same logic kneels before all the civil rights acts and claims responsibility for what was the genesis of all identity politics and victim class exploitation to follow
Im tired of it..
Screw them
We are so far beyond worthless political parties it’s just plain pitiful and silly
One day there will be a winner and it won’t be called GOP or Dems
Dems will be seen as instigators and destroyers
And GOP will be the Did Nothings
Look how much they the supposed political party right oppose this president Donaldus Magnus who has a bedrock base
Yes I supported Cruz and had stickers made at cafepress in early 2013 hoping
But Trump quickly proved himself more fearless and less political pragmatism and We went to Trump fairly early like summer 2015
I disagree that most were for Cruz here once Trumpie came down the golden escalator and think most freepers were easily Trump people by the end of the Bitch Debate
Because Trump pushes back
Cruz folks here simply said Trump was a fakir......really how does that look now from GOPBRIEFINGROOOM.COM?
They all ran there to antifreep and kibbutz
Rush on occasion disappoints
I’m a 24/7 for five years now and have listened since the very early days.....the tv show
I’m very disapppointed
Before the War the Southern states wanted slavery. During the War the Southern states wanted slavery. After the War they still wanted slavery, though it was no longer possible. Given that wouldn't any one wanting the end of slave have the moral high ground over those who wanted it to continue?
The very good reason that such an amendment was not introduced was because there wasn’t a snow ball’s chance in hell of it ever being passed. The slave states could block any such attempt. Add to this fact that a gag rule about discussing slavery had been enforced in congress since the 1830s so you couldn’t even talk about such an amendment.
That is a very nice example. I don’t see how anyone can read that letter Lincoln wrote to Speed and not see how badly Lincoln hated slavery. Lincoln had such a way with words. It seems to me the people on this thread that attempt to claim that the civil war wasn’t about slavery simply refuse to read actual documents from the time.
Excellent summary, your post #501.
Highly recommended for anyone who wishes to learn a short version of the truth, as opposed to ridiculous Lost Cause propaganda.
I was for Trump from the beginning because I wanted something different then a career politician. I didn’t think he had much of a chance but he proved me wrong. If the election would have been between Jeb Bush and Hillary ( how I thought it was going to turn out) I would not have voted. Luckily Trump stomped Jeb and that didn’t happen.
He’s right... While slavery has been the single dumbed down reason given, but the civil war was far more than just about abolition.
If it was, tell me why the Union had Slave states, and the Emancipation Proclamation did free a single slave in those states?
Go read up on the tariff of abomination, and the nullifier movement etc.
Go read the 528 prior posts. The reasons why you are wrong are all in there.
Plus railroads, mines, ships, manufacturing and any other cash-crops like sugar & tobacco.
In fact, there were no industrial era jobs slaves could not do.
Yes, DiogenesLamp & others insist that slavery was dying out even in 1860, and there's some small truth in that.
In border states like Delaware & Maryland where slavery was legal in 1860, the number of slaves was declining, while the number of freedmen increased.
The reasons were 1) high slave prices in the cotton-south, 2) ease of running away to Northern free-states & 3) large numbers of Northern anti-slavery immigrants to Southern slave-states.
However, as of 1860 there was no serious political discussion of abolition in either Delaware or Maryland, where slavery was unpopular, much less in Deep South states where it was considered "a way of life".
Indeed, Delaware had fewer than 2% slaves, but rejected the 13th amendment in 1865, did not ratify it until 1901!
So my point here is: even in states where slavery was arguably "dying out", politicians were unwilling to vote for abolition.
And there's more...
Posters like DiogenesLamp argue that had Woodrow Wilson been President of the Confederacy, he would have kept them out of the First World War even beyond 1917.
That would let the Germans win, which would have prevented the Second World war, the Holocaust & everything else bad in the 20th century, right?
No, not really, because the key point forgotten here is that 1917 Germans were already "proto-Nazis" -- they were already racial supremacists and except for actual gas chambers & ovens, practiced what the Nazis preached in the Second World War, including a form of slavery over conquered Eastern European countries.
So now imagine that slavery was victorious in the Civil War and again in the First World War, so when, exactly would it ever be rendered obsolete & ineffective?
Add to it the Confederacy's "Golden Circle" of conquered Caribbean & Central American countries, add in Islamic slavery, and Japanese racial superiority over other East Asians, and now look at the world's map -- what percent of the world is slave and what percent free?
Today we consider slavery pretty much of a dead-issue, because it was thoroughly defeated in wars, but what if it had not been defeated?
What if slavery had been victorious at every turn?
How would it ever be abolished, even to this day?
“Before the War the Southern states wanted slavery. During the War the Southern states wanted slavery. After the War they still wanted slavery . . .”
I don’t know who is tutoring you, but they have made your rhetorical skills great again.
Going forward, fold in some sound reasoning and you will become formidable.
I can even see you as class superlative: Most Likely to Become Formidable.
Now that is a scary alternative history. I enjoy alternative history books but the further you get away from the actual event that deviates from the real time line the more you are really just guessing.
Here is a alternative scenario I have thought about and think is supported by what happened before. If during the Trent affair the American captain had actually sank the British ship and Britian then declares war on the US, though they don’t recognize the confederacy because of its open support of slavery, they do start supporting it more. The south wins its independence and creates a new country.
However, the Underground Railroad is still operating and slaves are escaping in record numbers. The CSA files protests with the USA over this. The US ignores these and only half-heartily attempts to stop it. The south feels it’s “honor” is being defiled and declares war on the US because of this issue. That is what I think would most likely my happen in the near term if the south had won.
“Excellent summary, your post #501.”
Interpretation: Keep your chin up and your head down. And prepare to retreat.
Right now Brother Joe is preparing a Castro-strength smoke barrage that will obscure this debate space for days.
Lol..no one should confuse smacking poseurs like you around with "south bashing", they're two separate and distinct activities.
If you have any examples of me actually bashing the South please post them, or kindly keep my name off your list.
Lo tengo blotter boy?
“Tell us more about that magic moment when the northern states were given the moral high ground.”
Don’t mix all “northern states” together, it was not a monolithic group.
The treatment of blacks in many areas of the NE was disgraceful, i.e. the New York riots, etc. But blacks often had an easier time finding work compared to the Irish.
It was a far different attitude in the midwest, west of Ohio. That region was heavily settled by German and Scandinavian immigrants that came from Europe where indentured servitude was common.
Most were Lutheran and Methodist with no tolerance for slavery of anyone. Blacks were widely sheltered and assisted to freedom.
After the Civil war, many blacks were traveling skilled workers and widely welcomed and paid the same as any other. Few chose to settle except in the larger cities like Waterloo, Chicago, and Minneapolis, where they were more comfortable with others of a southern black experience.
I always like to find a common ground in a debate. Can we all agree that if South Carolina had not seceded there would have been no civil war?
You’re such a dumbass one note Johnny you don’t even realize I said you and rocky were the exceptions
Ever the gracious yankee or whatever the eff your agenda here is butthurt boy
You like all the rest have some skin in the game with your south hatred.
Little clues always pop up and it always indicates some aggrieved minority of some sort affiliation but except for Kangaroo most of y’all are too soft to own it so you just snipe
Or worse yet cut and pate McPherson lectures ad nauseum
Hey look Pelham
You act reasonable with these turds that have been here two decades only to bash southerners and look how they act
Not much graciousness in most of them
Says our two-packs-per-day obscurer-in-chief and master debater.
jeffersondem never objects to "castro-strength" when his own side posts them, indeed never even notices.
Nor does jeffersondem object to inappropriate formatting so long as it's in defense of your own Lost Cause, right?
Ah, well... we all do what we can... {sigh}
You mean there wasn't sufficient will of the people to create an amendment banning it? Well isn't that the reason the amendment process is in the constitution; To keep changes from occurring for which their is insufficient support?
It is a fiction that the 13th amendment was legally passed. That was just the wielding of raw military power to oppress states and force them to vote for what the dictator said, and that's all it was.
The slave states could block any such attempt.
Yes they could, and D@mn them for preventing people from re-writting the constitution without actually having to amend it through the legal process.
Stubborn bastards, don't they know it's a "living constitution"? It should mean whatever northeaster liberals want it to mean.
Add to this fact that a gag rule about discussing slavery had been enforced in congress since the 1830s so you couldn’t even talk about such an amendment.
I guess @$$hole Charles Sumner didn't get the memo.
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.