Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP candidate: Civil war wasn’t about slavery
The Hill ^ | June 25th, 2018 | Lisa Hagen

Posted on 06/25/2018 3:28:41 PM PDT by Mariner

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 781-799 next last
To: yarddog

Marx favored abolition of slaves and supported anyone toward that aim. He didn’t GAS about the United States or Abraham Lincoln - only his agenda.

You can foolishly feeeeeeel that this means that he and Lincoln were besties but that says more about you than it does him.


61 posted on 06/25/2018 4:07:43 PM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Right... they are not looking for an intellectual answer... they are looking for a sound byte


62 posted on 06/25/2018 4:07:55 PM PDT by willyd (I for one welcome our NSA overlords)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: x

FUX


63 posted on 06/25/2018 4:08:12 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
There is no right to secede.

The States have always had that right, what do you think the Revolutionary War was? The only question has been will they be allowed to go peacefully? In both cases, the answer was no, you must fight a war for your freedom. The first fight was successful. The second time, the king won.
64 posted on 06/25/2018 4:08:40 PM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

I think we just outed another Clinton and Obama man.

You equate Trump supporters with the KKK and support Karl Marx. You also start off with an immediate personal attack.

I have seen your kind many times before.


65 posted on 06/25/2018 4:12:35 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: x

Bingo!

You and I see it! Know the way it should be handled!

Questions like that in a public forum are a bright pink bear trap with glitter and spangles!

Want to discuss the nuances of the “War Between the States”. Join a Civil War Roundtable or go to grad school in Civil War history or political philosophy specializing in 19th century American Thought. Don’t do it while your running for office! Many of those listening are not your friends! It’s a campaign not a PolySci bull session!


66 posted on 06/25/2018 4:13:01 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar

There was no secession in either occasion. The American Revolutionaries openly rebelled as a last recourse to oppression by the crown.

The Dhimmicrat slavers of 1860 rebelled as a first recourse because they lost an election - just like the Dhimmicrats of today.


67 posted on 06/25/2018 4:13:13 PM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

Don’t be an idiot (oops - too late).


68 posted on 06/25/2018 4:14:16 PM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Stewart is right, but people in VA have already made up their minds on this race probably years earlier.


69 posted on 06/25/2018 4:14:38 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va; traderrob6; rockrr; BillyBoy; Mariner; AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj

ROTFLMAO

And why’d they want to secede? To preserve slave power. The modern day analogue would be corporations and liberals seeking to secede over preserving cheap illegal labor/illegal votes.

Corey should be talking about issues that are GD relevant to the lives of his prospective constituents not making a monkey out of himself spewing nonsense.

Stop twisting yourselves into pretzels with horsecrap like “it wasn’t about slavery” and let the Confederacy die already.


70 posted on 06/25/2018 4:14:59 PM PDT by Impy (I have no virtue to signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Reily

It was a teachable moment that Stewart didn’t try hard enough to win. He’s still correct however.


71 posted on 06/25/2018 4:15:04 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Impy

There are a lot benefits to secession that only a Southerner can understand. Breaking free of the New England power structure and separating from the haughty self righteous puritans being some of them.


72 posted on 06/25/2018 4:17:29 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard
Great. Yet another candidate who is too stupid to avoid liberal media pitfalls.

Seems like there's good consulting money to be made, just to coach these hapless candidates how to answer basic "gotcha" questions.

73 posted on 06/25/2018 4:17:50 PM PDT by Charles Martel (Progressives are the crab grass in the lawn of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Twinkle twinkle little star. What you say is what you are.

It is sort of fun to descend into name calling. It doesn’t take much thinking. It doesn’t accomplish much tho.


74 posted on 06/25/2018 4:18:08 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

“It was about slavery.”

If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?


75 posted on 06/25/2018 4:23:29 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

“The issue was slavery and its perpetuation.”

If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?


76 posted on 06/25/2018 4:24:32 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
Back to your history book (pre-new age).

The problem is that he is right just not politically correct.

77 posted on 06/25/2018 4:25:51 PM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

He’s absolutely correct. It wasn’t about slavery. Anybody who has read Lincoln’s Inaugural Address or who has read about the Corwin Amendment can see for himself that the Lincoln administration and the Northern dominated Congress were prepared to enshrine protections of slavery in the constitution by express constitutional amendment effectively forever.

That’s simply a fact whether anybody likes that or not. The Congress passed with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority and the president signed the Corwin Amendment and Lincoln openly endorsed it. He even got multiple states to ratify it. The Southern states could have signalled their acceptance of this amendment as satisfying their concerns had their real concerns been about slavery. They weren’t. They rejected slavery forever and pursued independence.


78 posted on 06/25/2018 4:26:15 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Ignorance...

The Constitution is a contract between the general government it authorized, the states and the people. Yes, the state and it's people have every right to secede from the union if the people and the state legislature believe the contract was broken. The 9th and 10th Amendments guarantees this. There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the general government to invade or force a state to remain in the union.

Lincoln had no authority to force the south to stay in the union or save the southern states from secession as he most famously declared in a speech that the union must be saved.

He cannot invade, threaten or siege a state into submission.

Basically he put a gun to their heads and said like a mob boss... "Nobody leaves the Union."

Once the states secede, the authoity of the Constitution no longer applies to these states and Lincoln is no longer their president. His authoity and responsibility is now to those states which still remain in the union.

Lincoln invaded sovereign states and forced them to remain in a Union they did not want. Lincoln behaved like a tyrant and conquering invader.

What Lincoln did was equivalent to the US invading Mexico and declaring it a 51st state.


79 posted on 06/25/2018 4:26:29 PM PDT by Bellagio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Mmm hmm, sure. Yeah, that really unfair system that inflated Congressional representation for the South by counting 60% of the non-voting slaves and forced Northern states to round up and send back escaped slaves. That and tariffs (which you like now but didn’t like back then).

A bunch of rich slave owners wanting to preserve their power is why it happened, period. You play make beleive if you tell yourself otherwise. Protecting slave owners interests was the CSA’s ONLY reason for existence. If you still wanna wax nostalgic on the CSA more power to you, but you don’t get to deny facts. No one started a war over not liking GD Massholes.


80 posted on 06/25/2018 4:29:02 PM PDT by Impy (I have no virtue to signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 781-799 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson