Leonard Pitts:Civil War was all about slavery

News-Record.com ^ | 4.14.2010 | Leonard Pitts

[panthermom]

Then why did some of the framers/founders own slaves?

Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves, as did Franklin,

[SatinDoll]

The founders owned slaves because it was profitable and they didn’t see black folk as being quite as human as white folk.

Just for the record, whites as indentured servants were treated just as poorly as the slaves, oftentimes living and working alongside slaves if they didn’t have valuable skills. Nearly 80% of indentured servants did not survive to see the end of their indentured service. Fortunately, mine did survive.

I am not judging those who owned slaves as being evil people. It is foolish to look centuries back in time and judge those people by our moral standards today.

One of the nastier, lesser known facts about New England is that early settlers to Massachusetts, Connecticutt and Rhode Island, after winning a war against local Indian tribes, packed the Indian survivors into ships and sold them into slavery in Africa. This was not what we today would term “christian behavior”.

By the 19th century there was a growing realization in Europe and America that slavery was morally wrong BECAUSE black slaves were human beings. This sentiment grew to such an extent that abolition became a politically powerful movement. Eventually England made the sale and transport of slaves illegal within its Empire.

We Americans, unable to come to a civilized solution, resorted to war.

[SatinDoll]

Please, I don’t call other’s thinking epithets. I’m just telling what I know about certain facts. Certainly we can discuss this without name calling, too.

You might take a look at my post #82, as part of it describes the fate of New England’s Indians at the hands of those damned yankees.

[SatinDoll]

People have rights, states have powers.

It’s in the U.S.Constitution.

[bigoil]

What law did South Carolina attempt to nullify in 1828?

It wasn’t Slavery...It was the TARIFF.

[rockrr]

“damned yankee” is an non-productive epithet

...just sayin

[Cheburashka]

Nearly 80% of indentured servants did not survive to see the end of their indentured service. Fortunately, mine did survive.

---

Oh, so you owned indentured servants?

I presume you are actually talking about your ancestors being indentured servants and surviving the experience..

[SunkenCiv]

Secession Timeline various sources
Platform of the Alabama Democracy -- the first Dixiecrats wanted to be able to expand slavery into the territories. It was precisely the issue of slavery that drove secession -- and talk about "sovereignty" pertained to restrictions on slavery's expansion into the territories.	January 1860
Abraham Lincoln nominated by Republican Party	May 18, 1860
Abraham Lincoln elected	November 6, 1860
Robert Toombs, Speech to the Georgia Legislature -- "...In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death."	November 13, 1860
Alexander H. Stephens -- "...The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution."	November 14, 1860
South Carolina	December 20, 1860
Mississippi	January 9, 1861
Florida	January 10, 1861
Alabama	January 11, 1861
Georgia	January 19, 1861
Louisiana	January 26, 1861
Texas	February 23, 1861
Abraham Lincoln sworn in as President of the United States	March 4, 1861
Arizona territory	March 16, 1861
CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Cornerstone speech -- "...last, not least. 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. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact."	March 21, 1861
Virginia	adopted April 17,1861 ratified by voters May 23, 1861
Arkansas	May 6, 1861
North Carolina	May 20, 1861
Tennessee	adopted May 6, 1861 ratified June 8, 1861
West Virginia declares for the Union	June 19, 1861
Missouri	October 31, 1861
"Convention of the People of Kentucky"	November 20, 1861

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ordnces.html

[Alabama] "...Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and manacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security... And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States, Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, be and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama, by their Delegates, in Convention, on the 4th day of February, A.D., 1861, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security." [Jan 11, 1861]

[Texas] "...The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression..." [Feb 1, 1861]

[Virginia] "...the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States..." [Feb 23, 1861]

http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/AZ/index.html

[Arizona Territory] "...a sectional party of the North has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their people... That we will not recognize the present Black Republican Administration, and that we will resist any officers appointed to this Territory by said Administration with whatever means in our power." [16 March 1861 -- Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States on March 4, 1861. The pretext for Arizona's secession was interruption of U.S. postal service.]

[Idabilly]

Marquis of Lothian:

"Let us however suppose the Southern Secession to have been altogether illegal and uncalled for, or rather let us turn away our eyes from the question altogether, and suppose that the causes of the struggle are veiled in obscurity. Can we find anything in the circumstances of the war itself which may induce us to take one side rather than the other? Those circumstances have been very remarkable. This contest has been signalized by the exhibition of some of the best and some of the worst qualities that war has ever brought out. It has produced a recklessness of human life; a contempt of principles, a disregard of engagements; a wasteful expenditure almost unprecedented; a widely extended corruption among the classes who have any connection with the government or the war; an enormous debt, so enormous as to point to almost certain repudiation; the headlong adoption of the most lawless measures; the public faith scandalously violated both towards friends and enemies; the liberty of the citizen at the mercy of arbitrary power; the liberty of the press abolished: the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; illegal imprisonments; midnight arrests; punishments inflicted without trial; the courts of law controlled by satellites of government; elections carried on under military supervision; a ruffianism both of word and action eating deep into the country; contractors and stock jobbers suddenly amassing enormous fortunes out of the public misery, and ostentatiously parading their ill-gotten wealth in the most vulgar display of luxury; the most brutal inhumanity in the conduct of the war itself; outrages upon the defenceless, upon women, children and prisoners; plunder, rapine, devastation, murder,--all the old horrors of barbarous warfare, which Europe is beginning to be ashamed of, and new refinements of cruelty thereto added, by way of illustrating the advance of knowledge. It has also produced qualities and phenomena the opposite of these. Ardour and devotedness of patriotism which might, alone be enough to make us proud of the century to which we belong; a unanimity such as has probably never been witnessed before; a wisdom in legislation; a stainless good faith under extremely difficult circumstances; a clear appreciation of danger, coupled with a determination to face it to the uttermost; a resolute abnegation of power in favor of leaders in whom those who selected them could trust; with an equally resolute determination to reserve the liberty of criticism, and not to allow those trusted leaders to go one inch beyond their legal powers: a heroism in the field and behind the defences of besieged cities, which can match anything that history has to show; a wonderful helpfulness in supplying needs and creating fresh resources; a chivalrous and romantic daring, which recalls the middle ages: a most scrupulous regard for the rights of hostile property; a tender consideration for the vanquished and the weak; a determination not to be provoked into retaliation by the most brutal injuries, which makes one wonder, recollecting what those injuries have been, whether in their place, one would have done as they have done. * * * And the remarkable circumstance is * * * that all the good qualities have been on the one side, and all the bad ones on the other."

[SatinDoll]

LOL!

“I presume you are actually talking about your ancestors...”

Yes.

[piytar]

Either JD was a fictional character or, in Freeper parlance, a troll...

[piytar]

Best summary I’ve seen on Free Republic regarding this mess of an issue.

[stainlessbanner]

Pitts is the reason why I cancelled my daily newspaper subscription several years back. He views everything through a racial lens - every article is the same, every week.

He plays the "expert" on everything: economy, politics, education, healthcare. Problem is, he weaves racism into every story.

[stainlessbanner]

Looks like Leonard Pitts has some fans on FR. Defending identity politics....unreal.

[TheDon]

I’m sure there were plenty of issues, we have plenty today. But only slavery was worth seceding over.

[BnBlFlag]

“Defending identity politics....unreal.”
Well, we do have a large PC contingent hare on FR. Many of them show up regularly on WBTS threads to trash anything remotely “Southern”. We both know who they are. Most are Yankees, but there are quite a few Scalawags here too.
BTW, Pitts is F.O.S. and has been for a long time.

[rustbucket]

[16 March 1861 -- Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States on March 4, 1861. The pretext for Arizona's secession was interruption of U.S. postal service.]

The Arizona Territory secession/separation document you are quoting from was the second such document adopted by Arizona Territory. The first was adopted on February 3, 1861, also at Mesilla [present day southern New Mexico]. The February 3 document does not mention the interruption of the postal service as a reason for secession. It says in part:

Whereas, the continued aggressions and encroachments of the dominant party in the North, upon the equality and Constitutional rights of the South, have reached their climax in the election of a declared and open enemy of Southern rights, upon that one issue, and precipitated the Southern States into decided action; and the formation of a Southern Confederacy of States will probably follow; Therefore it is resolved --

1. That in the division of the Territories belonging to the United States, acquired by the blood and treasure of both North and South, Arizona naturally belongs to the South and should be attached to it.

3. That we repudiate a union or any connection with the Northern States under Black Republican principles, and that we cannot submit to being ruled by them as a Territory, without the loss of self-respect and the good opinion of the world.

7. That in case there is no formation of the Southern Confederation, that we desire to be annexed to the Republic of Texas, (in case Texas should secede and act independently,) as a part and parcel of that Republic, where we naturally belong. And that our delegates do all that they can to place us under the protection of the Lone Star Banner.

On March 16, 1861, after the Confederate States of America had been formed, the Arizona Territory held another convention in Mesilla and adopted the second secession document from which you quoted. They dropped their stated wish to be annexed to Texas and said the following instead:

RESOLVED, That we do not desire to be attached as a Territory to any State seceding separately from the Union, but to and under the protection of a Confederacy of the Southern States.

The mail service issue was not the only issue prompting the separation, but it was one of the reasons stated in the March 16 document. The parts you quoted from the March document are roughly the same reasons given in the February document. The mail service was mentioned as "another powerful reason" to separate in the March document [my bold below]:

RESOLVED, That the recent enactment of the Federal Congress, removing the mail service from the Atlantic to the Pacific States from the Southern to the Central or Northern route, is another powerful reason for us to ask the Southern Confederate States of America for a continuation of the postal service over the Butterfield or El Paso route, at the earliest period.

[mojitojoe]

bump, bump, bump, desperate to find someone to call names. You're pathetic.

[GOP_Raider]

Against my better judgment, I'm kind of in the process of formulating another thrilling 18 Questions on the Civil War, like I did about a year or so ago. One of them was going to do with this quote from Abraham Lincoln himself, which was in response to a Horace Greeley editorial:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

Every time I read this, it strikes me as Lincoln's way of saying to the abolitionists "look, if we don't find a way to win this thing, abolishing chattel slavery will be the least of our problems." My question with this quote is actually twofold: 1) is the aforementioned analysis of that quote correct? and 2) does this statement prove the meme that before 1/1/1863 abolishing slavery wasn't an ultimate objective of the war?

[catfish1957]

I am a genealogist, and have proven that 4 of 5 of my civil war confederate veteran ancestors did not own slaves. N-S always fails to comprehend that when people have their country invaded they will respond by defending.

He also never realizes that slavery (though wrong) held together the economy of the south. Only 1/3 of the south's population owned slaves, so it bears mentioning that the underlying economics had actually more to do with it than the issue of slavery itself. Because if it was primarily about slavery I don't think the groundswell of support would have been there.

And last anyone who thinks Sherman is a "hero" (N-S) is below slime (IMO)