Posted on 04/15/2010 1:16:02 PM PDT by wolfcreek
Ten years ago, I received an e-mail from a reader who signed him or herself "J.D." "I am a white racist," wrote J.D., "a white supremacist and I do not deny it."
From that, you'd suspect J.D. had nothing of value to say. You'd be mistaken. J.D. wrote in response to a column documenting the fact that preservation of slavery was the prime directive of the Confederacy. "I was most pleased to see you write what we both know to be the truth," the e-mail said. "I never cease to be amazed at the Sons of Confederate Veterans and similar 'heritage not hate' groups who are constantly whining that the Confederacy was not a white, racist government ..."
That argument, noted J.D. with wry amusement, plays well with "white people who want to be Confederates without any controversy."
(Excerpt) Read more at news-record.com ...
From the Confederate States Constitution:
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed
So Pitts and this White Supremacist idiot are both racist dolts who don’t understand the political underpinnings that led to secession and the Civil War. Yes, slavery was AN issue, but ultimately it was an issue of the southern states attempting to exert their sovereignty as states against increasing federal encroachment.
Let me guess he can’t actually produce this moron.....very convenient when the perfect letter shows up to support your premise. The civil war was partially about slavery but it was mostly about the states right to secede.Lincoln said he could live with slavery if it would preserve the Union.
He picks one damn letter out of who knows how many and makes an issue of it. I want Black people to start growing up and focus on today rather than continually looking at the past.
Is his nickname Stu?
Why didn’t all of the Union states outlaw slavery then?
Is he willing to go to war against Islamic theocracies that still practice slavery then if it can be sole justification for war?
The same article and message week after week.
Nice work if you can get it.
That’s true. They also had this one, which was cool:
20.Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
The 15 states of the Union in which slavery was legal before the Civil War, including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
Of course, the U.S. Constitution in effect at the same time as the Constitution of the Confederate States said:
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Actually, “Afro” had nothing to do with it.
I found nothing wrong with the article other than some here on FR won’t like it.
It was an accurate article.
“... it was an issue of the southern states attempting to exert their sovereignty as states against increasing federal encroachment.”
I am always amused by this argument.
This position attempts to sanitize and cloak this fact: that southern states maintained owning another human being was not a violation of the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
I seriously doubt the letter’s even real.
A poster on the original site summed it up perfectly:
“The Civil War was about secession; secession was about slavery.”
As for the idiot referring to the CSA as a
“white, racist government;” So was the USA in 1861!!
Alexander Stephens, veep of the Confederacy, was there. In a position of authority in the Confederacy, so he would likely have a better perspective than those of us interpreting history 150 years on.
The best history courses have you read what the real players, the movers and the shakers, were reading/saying.
In what is known as the Cornerstone speech, Mr Stephens noted (emphasis mine): "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
Later in the speech, he notes the following: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."
Seems the players at the time thought that the institution of slavery was a bit more than just AN issue, rather it appears that it was the 'immediate cause', to quote Stephens.
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.