Restricted Debate Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt signed 1990 letter about how ‘states rights’ led to Civil War

Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
2,228
Location
44022
#1
1556304934432.png

U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri says he did not write — but did sign — a 1990 letter that discusses “states rights” as a cause of the Civil War, but makes no mention of slavery

U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt says he did not write — but did sign — a 1990 letter that discusses “states’ rights” as a cause of the Civil War, but makes no mention of slavery.

Blunt worked as a high school history teacher, college history professor and university president in Missouri before winning a seat in Congress in 1996. In an interview with The Star earlier this month, the Missouri Republican stressed that it’s always been clear to him that slavery was the “original sin” of the Constitution.

The fact that slavery caused the Civil War is not clear to all Americans, however. Polls show that 40 percent still think the conflict was “about” states’ rights,...

REST OF ARTICLE:https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article229580769.html
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
42
#2
It is most certainly not clear to all Americans - i.e., the numerous Lost Causers whose posts on this forum repeatedly and subjectively attempt to undermine slavery's place as the only central cause of the Civil War. "States' rights" is Lost Cause code for slavery; what other "rights" were the states in rebellion fighting for? The course of events that culminated in the outbreak of war may be complex, but the common factor that bonds those events together into one unbreakable thread is very simple.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,886
Location
Texas
#3
View attachment 304618
U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri says he did not write — but did sign — a 1990 letter that discusses “states rights” as a cause of the Civil War, but makes no mention of slavery.
The States had ALL the "Rights" the other States had, as prescribed in the US Constitution. PLUS the slave States had the 3/5ths compromise to boot!

Kevin Dally
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,410
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
#5
It is most certainly not clear to all Americans - i.e., the numerous Lost Causers whose posts on this forum repeatedly and subjectively attempt to undermine slavery's place as the only central cause of the Civil War. "States' rights" is Lost Cause code for slavery; what other "rights" were the states in rebellion fighting for? The course of events that culminated in the outbreak of war may be complex, but the common factor that bonds those events together into one unbreakable thread is very simple.
It's hard to deny that slavery caused secession for many of the Confederate States. Especially in the case of some of the lower South. However, that wasn't the cause of actual war. A failure of diplomacy caused war. Failure of the Lincoln administration to negotiate caused war.

The Independence of the Southern states, could've happened without war. The legality of secession was not settled in 1860/61.

I realize the numerous Single Causers who post on this forum, can't see anything other than slavery, slavery, slavery, or that secession, & war are two separate things.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
42
#6
It's hard to deny that slavery caused secession for many of the Confederate States. Especially in the case of some of the lower South. However, that wasn't the cause of actual war. A failure of diplomacy caused war. Failure of the Lincoln administration to negotiate caused war.

The Independence of the Southern states, could've happened without war. The legality of secession was not settled in 1860/61.

I realize the numerous Single Causers who post on this forum, can't see anything other than slavery, slavery, slavery, or that secession, & war are two separate things.
A failure of the Lincoln Administration to negotiate? That’s laughable. South Carolina declared secession on December 20, 1860. In case you didn’t know, Lincoln wasn’t inaugurated until March 4, 1861. By the time his administration had come into existence, the seven Lower South states had all followed suit. They didn’t give Lincoln a chance. Let’s also not forget that an egregious act of aggression on the part of the Rebel traitors officially started the war at Fort Sumter. The only way the Lincoln Administration was a “cause” of the war was the reality that the traitors couldn’t even fathom the thought of slavery being banned totally in the Western territories under a Republican - any Republican. As I’ve said on other threads, the war would have begun in early 1857 had Fremont been elected in 1856.

Why? Because the individuals didn’t cause the war. The long-standing sectional divide over human bondage did.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#7
It's hard to deny that slavery caused secession for many of the Confederate States. Especially in the case of some of the lower South. However, that wasn't the cause of actual war. A failure of diplomacy caused war. Failure of the Lincoln administration to negotiate caused war.

The Independence of the Southern states, could've happened without war. The legality of secession was not settled in 1860/61.

I realize the numerous Single Causers who post on this forum, can't see anything other than slavery, slavery, slavery, or that secession, & war are two separate things.
Can't have one without the other, @Viper21.
 

Patrick H

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,213
#10
I have never personally met Sen. Roy Blunt, but I'd like to ask two questions:

1: @bellemontgomery, what was your intention when you first posted this? There is no point in getting into a big argument with anyone about this until we know the original intent. Please believe me. I am NOT accusing you of being hostile to Roy Blunt. I am simply curious about your intention in launching this thread. We have some members who will spin this into an inflammatory argument.

2: How many of you read the entire article before you responded? Don't come back and say you don't need to read it. You DO need to read it in its entirety if you intend to respond to the article in a meaningful way.

Gary Kremer and Roy Blunt both know and both state that slavery was the central issue of the Civil War. What's to argue?
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
740
#11
The States had ALL the "Rights" the other States had, as prescribed in the US Constitution. PLUS the slave States had the 3/5ths compromise to boot!

Kevin Dally
But wanted to count the slaves as 1, the north 0. Hence the compromise. Tell the whole story! Political power had plenty to do with the problems between sections of the US
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,527
Location
Midwest
#12
Lincoln make it clear in his 1st Inaugural Address, he had no legal or personal desire to act against Slavery...
Wrong again. Lincoln had a great personal desire to act against slavery and he had said so well before his 1st Inaugural Address.

For the address he was just representing that he had no legal right to act against slavery where it existed. He was known as "Honest Abe" for a reason

The Lone Toners or Single Causers just can’t comprehend...
We realize these invented terms are merely meant as cynical equivalents to the actually-common term "Lost Causers." But oops, they actually do apply to the overwhelming consensus of amateur and academic Civil War historians in 2019, so thanks for the handles? And here's to hoping they stick.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#13
Lincoln make it clear in his 1st Inaugural Address, he had no legal or personal desire to act against Slavery.

The Lone Toners or Single Causers just can’t comprehend, other events during this period.
And Lost Causers do everything to ignore how the issue of slavery loomed over every other issue.
 

Patrick H

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,213
#14
But wanted to count the slaves as 1, the north 0. Hence the compromise. Tell the whole story! Political power had plenty to do with the problems between sections of the US
I do not understand this post, so I can't comment. Please elaborate and explain what you meant by: "slaves as 1, the north 0."
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
740
#15
I do not understand this post, so I can't comment. Please elaborate and explain what you meant by: "slaves as 1, the north 0."
3/5s compromise. Southern politicians wanted slaves to count as 1 person, northern politicians wanted them to count for 0. Would give southern states more representation as 1 obviously, northern politicians didn't want that. Hence the compromise for a slave to count as 3/5ths of a person. Sectional politics of that time.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
537
#16
So something taken out of context signed but evidently not written by a politician in an article that says no historian now alive believes this to be true is somehow evidence?

OK then.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,188
#17
Wrong again. Lincoln had a great personal desire to act against slavery and he had said so well before his 1st Inaugural Address.

For the address he was just representing that he had no legal right to act against slavery where it existed. He was known as "Honest Abe" for a reason



We realize these invented terms are merely meant as cynical equivalents to the actually-common term "Lost Causers." But oops, they actually do apply to the overwhelming consensus of amateur and academic Civil War historians in 2019, so thanks for the handles? And here's to hoping they stick.
Wrong again. Lincoln had a great personal desire to act against slavery and he had said so well before his 1st Inaugural Address.

For the address he was just representing that he had no legal right to act against slavery where it existed. He was known as "Honest Abe" for a reason



We realize these invented terms are merely meant as cynical equivalents to the actually-common term "Lost Causers." But oops, they actually do apply to the overwhelming consensus of amateur and academic Civil War historians in 2019, so thanks for the handles? And here's to hoping they stick.

Lincoln said:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

His Words, yours and others fallacy he didn't say them. Single Causer is not more divisive than others Calling people they don't Understand Lost Causer. Enjoy!
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#18
Lincoln said:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

His Words, yours and others fallacy he didn't say them. Single Causer is not more divisive than others Calling people they don't Understand Lost Causer. Enjoy!
Wrong.

Lincoln was telling folks, slaveowners mostly, that they had no reason to fear about slavery being abolished in their own states where it already existed.

It was those very same slaveholders who decided, all by themselves, that slavery would not be secure under a Republican president and administration.

In other words, you're pointing a finger in the wrong direction, when you speak of single causers.

The single causers were slaveholders who were worried beyond reason about, yep, you guessed it, SLAVERY.

Unionblue
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top