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 ...
Back when public schools taught history. That’s what I was taught.
In the United States of America the placement of power is in the People and its constitution. That is what Lincoln was preserving.
It’s the southern education. They still teach the Lost Cause view. What they forget to tell their students is that those so called states rights were to get their property returned from the North... you know those nonhumans known as slaves. They avoid the founding documents of the Confederacy or any of the speeches given. Just sad
“That’s a pretty piece of rhetoric, but while the South went to war to preserve slavery, the North went to war to preserve the Union.”
Some say the North fought to preserve their ability to collect import taxes. Lincoln for example.
Yes there were. Unfortunately the elites of the South were not and decided on a course of action that resulted in a war they could not win
Tariffs are on imports not exports.
Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness
I'm pretty sure nobody at the time put it that way.
Davis made it quite clear that it was not about slavery.
Davis's chance to win the war hinged on his getting recognition from Britain, France, and other countries. Saying that the war was about slavery would defeat his purposes. You'll notice that what he said in his inaugural address was different from what he said in his message to Congress: the inaugural address was more likely to be picked up by the world press, so he avoided talk about slavery.
He was even clearer in his farewell address to Congress:
It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.
The fear of emancipation and racial equality was what led to Mississippi's decision for secession. It doesn't matter that the Republicans didn't support racial equality. That's what slaveowners feared. And Davis was clear about that when he wasn't trying to fudge or hedge.
See my post 91 for more:
When you believe in your society enough to fight for it, you take it as a whole, and don't always think about every aspect of it. Some secessionists fought for their right to own slaves (or to acquire slaves eventually). Others were fighting for their state or region. They wouldn't necessarily say that they were fighting for slavery, but slavery was a major part of the economy and social structure of their state or region. Those who felt that their region was being threatened weren't talking about 20th century big government. They were talking about abolitionists.
“Hopefully Stewart drops out by the weekend so the party can come up with a viable, respectable, intelligent, and politically savvy candidate, else this seat goes to a Dem.”
Corker or Flake may be available.
It was the statement of the second highest political figure of the Confederacy. I think he would understand better why they seceded than you do.
The 13th Amendment was passed out of Congress and sent to the states long after the Southern states announced their secession and adopted a constitution that protected slavery to a far greater extent than the 13th Amendment would have. When you say the South rejected it do you honestly think they would have come crawling back for any reason, much less tariffs?
The Union was fighting against secession. I think there is little debate about their motivation.
Don't tell that to the leaders of the time. They thought it was.
My son had a dog called General Lee!
Why did Lincoln say that if he could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves he would do that?
Armed rebellion?
I understand he is saying that for the average soldier of the Confederacy slavery was not the foremost reason they were fighting. But to deny the secession itself and the war was not primarily about slavery (seen as a state issue) is disingenuous.
It is time though for people to be reminded that not only the South but the entire U.S. reaped the economic benefits of free labor and in the North cheap labor as well. That cotton in the mills of New England was not grown in Connecticut.
Have you read any of the Constitutions of the seceding states?
Some say the ice caps are melting and that polar bears will soon be extinct.
I’m pretty sure nobody at the time put it that way.
I’m pretty sure you’re digging through old threads and not this one.
-——————————————————————————————Davis’s chance to win the war hinged on his getting recognition from Britain, France, and other countries. Saying that the war was about slavery would defeat his purposes. You’ll notice that what he said in his inaugural address was different from what he said in his message to Congress: the inaugural address was more likely to be picked up by the world press, so he avoided talk about slavery.
That’s your interpretation. I disagree. Davis never mentioned slavery in his inaugural address. Lincoln only mentioned slavery in his to endorse slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
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. 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. There’s no way around those facts.
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.