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 ...
So they believed themselves to be above Constitutional law? So if they broke the Union compact, what is the big deal if others wanted to break it too?
It's not a compact unless everyone upholds it.
You think they should be better than Lincoln?
Without swallowing that "virtuous North" propaganda, the event looks pretty ugly and despotic. They have to believe the "virtuous North" stuff, because without it, their side was the bad guys.
“The 13th amendment represents the power of force.”
Agreed, freedom for the slaves, the taking away of the most valuable property in the US, was delivered out of a gun barrel.
Refreshingly objective. I applaud.
Another claim repeated endlessly, still not true.
Let's start here:
First, after the Civil War US cotton production doubled by 1900 and tripled by 1914, all without modern farming technology, suggesting there was plenty of unused acreage available in 1860 which could well have employed rising slave populations.
Second, slaves could be and were employed in any industry of 1860, just as their descendants are today.
From railroads & mining to farms, factories & shipping there were simply no limitations on slavery's growth potential where it was legal.
DiogenesLamp: "Who said "blink of an eye"?
More Capital would spur growth, some would be immediate, but some would be years in coming.
The larger industries would take time, but they would happen.
Smaller industries would proliferate quickly.
The one thing Capital would not do is sit around doing nothing."
I always love it when a trained Marxist like DiogenesLamp is out defending capitalism, nice going!
But there's nothing within capitalism itself, if separated from traditional moral values, which would prevent capitalists from using slaves wherever profitable.
History proves that slavery/abolition was never a function of any particular economic system, but rather of our moral/religious codes.
Here is the speech by General Forrest to the International Order of Pole Bearers Association as quoted in the Memphis Daily Appeal newspaper of July 6, 1875.
Memphis Daily Appeal, July 6, 1875
Come on, Non-Sequitur, I know you have a hard time acknowledging when you are wrong, but you could regain some credibility by doing it here.
Yes, my family broke the law and accepted the consequences, laws they thought were unjust and immoral.
The incursion of slave hunters was a very sore point.
As my grandfather explained when I asked him why my great-grandfather would risk his life and freedom to help escaping slaves. Grandpa only replied, “They were Methodists”, nothing more.
When Fort Sumter was fired on, the early Iowa regiments were self financed with gray uniforms. They didn’t think of being a part of the Union Army, they planned to attack the Confederacy on their own.
After a few months of training, they cooled off, waited for Blue uniforms and accepted commission into the Union army.
Had Missouri chosen to secede they would have been invaded by the Iowa volunteers with or without orders from Lincoln.
Desperation to stop establishment knuckleheads, who, in this case, actually know better.
Mr. Stewart should look up the Cornerstone Speech.
In the issue I linked to in the Memphis newspaper does call the group the “Independent Order of Pole-Bearers” and doesn’t mention Association or International. So, you were correct in wondering about the title of the organization. Or did you make up the title you listed yourself?
It sure sounds like you are butt-hurt from something. Sorry to cause you such anguish. But anytime I catch you randomly snatching some scrap of text and attributing it to Abe, I will call you on it. Meanwhile, work on re-establishing your credibility here.
My bad, should have specified when she traveled to a free state, Fredrick Dent forbade her taking an of the slaves with her.
I think it's made up, but it wasn't by me. Blame the Tennessee SCV
Of course since they claim it was a "predecessor to the NAACP" then that may not be the only thing that was made up.
But I have always respected your scholarship, rustbucket, and would like to ask you a question. I recently read Brian Steel Wills' biography on Forrest and he didn't mention the speech. I'm not aware of any other ones who mention the speech either. Why is that do you think?
I can respect that. We should all defy law that we consider immoral. But wouldn't the more moral thing be to demand separation so one does not live under an immoral law?
Is not the solution to a black sheep of a family to disown that family member?
It humanizes him and damages the narrative about his founding of the Klan.
You all keep implying that nobody was worse than Lincoln when it came to the races. Now is your chance to prove it.
And you think his biographers want to avoid that?
My family like many, many others homesteaded in Iowa in 1843.
Slavery and the slave hunters was a significant problem.
But secession was never a consideration because the Federal government was providing much appreciated fertile land and opportunity that my family had only dreamed of while in NY.
Remember too, the threat of Indian attack was very real.
My family and others had to form the NE Iowa Protection Association that was no less a militia to also protect from marauding thieves and bandits.
Loss of Federal protection would not have been sensible.
Not me. I've been arguing that both the North and the South were pretty D@mned racist, and there's not a dimes worth of difference between the two.
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.