Posted on 09/09/2019 9:42:11 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The EUROPEANS, Middle easterners and Africans brought slavery here.
Those old, white, rich forefathers of ours formed a nation and GOT RID of it within 100 years.
They are heroes, not villains as the left wants to portray them as.
Papa Walton in “Roots”: ‘They’re better off as slaves. At home(Africa) they eat each other.’
Nope! Just more revisionist history.
-—and every weekend in or urban paradises , a considerable number prove that they would have been better off if somebody still did own them-—
I highly recommend *DESTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION*, by Richard Taylor, son of President Zachary Taylor, for perhaps the best insight into the true causes for our Civil War.
Excerpt 1:
~ ~ ~
CHAPTER I.
SECESSION.
THE history of the United States, as yet unwritten, will show the causes of the "Civil War" to have been in existence during the Colonial era, and to have cropped out into full view in the debates of the several State Assemblies on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, in which instrument Luther Martin, Patrick Henry, and others, insisted that they were implanted. African slavery at the time was universal, and its extinction in the North, as well as its extension in the South, was due to economic reasons alone.
The first serious difficulty of the Federal Government arose from the attempt to lay an excise on distilled spirits. The second arose from the hostility of New England traders to the policy of the Government in the war of 1812, by which their special interests were menaced; and there is now evidence to prove that, but for the unexpected peace, an attempt to disrupt the Union would then have been made.
The "Missouri Compromise" of 1820 was in reality a truce between antagonistic revenue systems, each seeking to gain the balance of power. For many years subsequently, slaves - as domestic servants - were taken to the Territories without exciting remark, and the "Nullification" movement in South Carolina was entirely directed against the tariff.
Anti-slavery was agitated from an early period, but failed to attract public attention for many years. At length, by unwearied industry, by ingeniously attaching itself to exciting questions of the day, with which it had no natural connection, it succeeded in making a lodgment in the public mind, which, like a subject exhausted by long effort, is exposed to the attack of some malignant fever, that in a normal condition of vigor would have been resisted. The common belief that slavery was the cause of civil war is incorrect, and Abolitionists are not justified in claiming the glory and spoils of the conflict and in pluming themselves as "choosers of the slain."
The vast immigration that poured into the country between the years 1840 and 1860 had a very important influence in directing the events of the latter year. The numbers were too great to be absorbed and assimilated by the native population. States in the West were controlled by German and Scandinavian voters, while the Irish took possession of the seaboard towns. Although the balance of party strength was not much affected by these naturalized voters, the modes of political thought were seriously disturbed, and a tendency was manifested to transfer exciting topics from the domain of argument to that of violence.
The aged and feeble President, Mr. Buchanan, unfitted for troublous times, was driven to and fro by ambitious leaders of his own party, as was the last weak Hapsburg who reigned in Spain by the rival factions of France and Austria.
Under these conditions the National Democratic Convention met at Charleston, South Carolina, in the spring of 1860, to declare the principles on which the ensuing presidential campaign was to be conducted, and select candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President. Appointed a delegate by the Democracy of my State, Louisiana, in company with others I reached Charleston two days in advance of the time. We were at once met by an invitation to join in council delegates from the Gulf States, to agree upon some common ground of action in the Convention, but declined for the reason that we were accredited to the National Convention, and had no authority
to participate in other deliberations. This invitation and the terms in which it was conveyed argued badly for the harmony of the Convention itself, and for the preservation of the unity of the Democracy, then the only organization supported in all quarters of the country.
It may be interesting to recall the impression created at the time by the tone and temper of different delegations. New England adhered to the old tenets of the Jefferson school. Two leaders from Massachusetts, Messrs. Caleb Cushing and Benjamin F. Butler, of whom the former was chosen President of the Convention, warmly supported the candidacy of Mr. Jefferson Davis. New York, under the direction of Mr. Dean Richmond, gave its influence to Mr. Douglas. Of a combative temperament, Mr. Richmond was impressed with a belief that "secession" was but a bugbear to frighten the northern wing of the party. Thus he failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation, and impaired the value of unusual common sense and unselfish patriotism, qualities he possessed to an eminent degree. The anxieties of Pennsylvania as to candidates were accompanied by a philosophic indifference as to principles. The Northwest was ardent for Douglas, who divided with Guthrie Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana held moderate opinions, and were ready to adopt any honorable means to preserve the unity of the party and country. The conduct of the South Carolina delegates was admirable. Representing the most advanced constituency in the Convention, they were singularly reticent, and abstained from adding fuel to the flames. They limited their rôle to that of dignified, courteous hosts, and played it as Carolina gentlemen are wont to do. From Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas came the fiery spirits, led by Mr. William L. Yancey of Alabama, an able rhetorician. This gentleman had persuaded his State Convention to pass a resolution, directing its delegates to withdraw from Charleston if the Democracy there assembled refused to adopt the extreme Southern view as to the rights of citizens in the territories. In this he was opposed by
ex-Governor Winston, a man of conservative tendencies, and long the rival of Mr. Yancey in State politics. Both gentlemen were sent to Charleston, but the majority of their co-delegates sustained Mr. Yancey.
Several days after its organization the National Convention reached a point which made the withdrawal of Alabama imminent. Filled with anxious forebodings, I sought after nightfall the lodgings of Messrs. Slidell, Bayard, and Bright, United States senators, who had come to Charleston, not as delegates, but under the impulse of hostility to the principles and candidacy of Mr. Douglas. There, after pointing out the certain consequences of Alabama's impending action, I made an earnest appeal for peace and harmony, and with success. Mr. Yancey was sent for, came into our views after some discussion, and undertook to call his people together at that late hour, and secure their consent to disregard instructions. We waited until near dawn for Yancey's return, but his efforts failed of success. Governor Winston, originally opposed to instructions as unwise and dangerous, now insisted that they should be obeyed to the letter, and carried a majority of the Alabama delegates with him. Thus the last hope of preserving the unity of the National Democracy was destroyed, and by one who was its earnest advocate.
The withdrawal of Alabama, followed by other Southern States, the adjournment of a part of the Convention to Baltimore and of another part to Richmond, and the election of Lincoln by votes of Northern States, require no further mention.
In January, 1861, the General Assembly of Louisiana met. A member of the upper branch, and chairman of its Committee on Federal Relations, I reported, and assisted in passing, an act to call a Convention of the people of the State to consider of matters beyond the competency of the Assembly. The Convention met in March, and was presided over by ex-Governor and ex-United States Senator Alexander Mouton, a man of high character. I represented my own parish, St. Charles, and was appointed chairman of the Military and Defense
Committee, on behalf of which two ordinances were reported and passed: one, to raise two regiments; the other, to authorize the Governor to expend a million of dollars in the purchase of arms and munitions. The officers of the two regiments were to be appointed by the Governor, and the men to be enlisted for five years, unless sooner discharged. More would have been desirable in the way of raising troops, but the temper of men's minds did not then justify the effort. The Governor declined to use his authority to purchase arms, assured as he was on all sides that there was no danger of war, and that the United States arsenal at Baton Rouge, completely in our power, would furnish more than we could need. It was vainly urged in reply that the stores of the arsenal were almost valueless, the arms being altered flint-lock muskets, and the accouterments out of date. The current was too strong to stem.
The Convention, by an immense majority of votes, adopted an ordinance declaring that Louisiana ceased to be a State within the Union. Indeed, similar action having already been taken by her neighbors, Louisiana of necessity followed. At the time and since, I marveled at the joyous and careless temper in which men, much my superiors in sagacity and experience, consummated these acts. There appeared the same general gaÎté de coeur that M. Ollivier claimed for the Imperial Ministry when war was declared against Prussia. The attachment of northern and western people to the Union; their superiority in numbers, in wealth, and especially in mechanical resources; the command of the sea; the lust of rule and territory always felt by democracies, and nowhere to a greater degree than in the South - all these facts were laughed to scorn, or their mention was ascribed to timidity and treachery.
As soon as the Convention adjourned, finding myself out of harmony with prevailing opinion as to the certainty of war and necessity for preparation, I retired to my estate, determined to accept such responsibility only as came to me unsought.
The inauguration of President Lincoln; the confederation of South Carolina, Georgia, and the five Gulf States; the attitude of the border slave States, hoping to mediate; the assembling of Confederate forces at Pensacola, Charleston, and other points; the seizure of United States forts and arsenals; the attack on "Sumter"; war - these followed with bewildering rapidity, and the human agencies concerned seemed as unconscious as scene-shifters in some awful tragedy.
Excerpt 2:
~ ~ ~
Aggrieved by the action and tendencies of the Federal Government, and apprehending worse in the future, a majority of the people of the South approved secession as the only remedy suggested by their leaders. So travelers enter railway carriages, and are dragged up grades and through tunnels with utter loss of volition, the motive power, generated by fierce heat, being far in advance and beyond their control.
We set up a monarch, too, King Cotton, and hedged him with a divinity surpassing that of earthly potentates. To doubt his royalty and power was a confession of ignorance or cowardice. This potent spirit, at the nod of our Prosperos, the cotton-planters, would arrest every loom and spindle in New England, destroy her wealth, and reduce her population to beggary. The power of Old England, the growth of eight hundred years, was to wither as the prophet's gourd unless she obeyed its behests. And a right "tricksy spirit" it proved indeed. There was a complete mental derangement on this subject. The Government undertook to own all cotton that could be exported. Four millions of bales, belonging to many thousands of individuals, could be disposed of to better advantage by the Government than by the proprietors; and this was enforced by our authorities, whose ancestors for generations had been resisting the intrusion of governments into private business. All cotton, as well as naval stores, that was in danger of falling into the enemy's possession, was, by orders based on legislative enactment, to be burned; and this policy continued to the end. It was fully believed that this destruction would appall our enemies and convince the world of our earnestness. Possibly there was a lurking idea that it was necessary to convince ourselves.
In their long struggle for independence, the Dutch trafficked freely with the Spaniards, got rich by the trade, paid enormous taxes to support the war, and achieved their liberty. But the Dutch fought to rid themselves of a tyrant, while our first care was to set up one, Cotton, and worship it. Rules of common sense were not applicable to it. The Grand Monarque could not eat his dinners or take his emetics like ordinary mortals. Our people were much debauched by it. I write advisedly, for during the last two and a half years of the war I commanded in the State of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, the great producing States. Out-post officers would violate the law, and trade. In vain were they removed; the temptation was too strong, and their successors did the same. The influence on the women was dreadful, and in many cases their appeals were heart-rending. Mothers with suffering children, whose husbands were in the war or already fallen, would beseech me for permits to take cotton through the lines. It was useless to explain that it was against law and orders, and that I was without authority to act. This did not give food and clothing to their children, and they departed, believing me to be an unfeeling brute. In fact, the instincts of humanity revolted against this folly.
It is with no pleasure that I have dwelt on the foregoing topics, but the world can not properly estimate the fortitude of the Southern people unless it understands and takes account of the difficulties under which they labored. Yet, great as were their sufferings during the war, they were as nothing compared to those inflicted upon them after its close.
Extinction of slavery was expected by all and regretted by none, although loss of slaves destroyed the value of land. Existing since the earliest colonization of the Southern States, the institution was interwoven with the thoughts, habits, and daily lives of both races, and both suffered by the sudden disruption of the accustomed tie. Bank stocks, bonds, all personal property, all accumulated wealth, had disappeared. Thousands of houses, farm-buildings, work-animals, flocks and herds, had been wantonly burned, killed, or carried off. The land was filled with widows and orphans crying for aid, which the universal destitution prevented them from receiving. Humanitarians shuddered with horror and wept with grief for the imaginary woes of Africans; but their hearts were as adamant to people of their own race and blood. These had committed the unpardonable sin, had wickedly rebelled against the Lord's anointed, the majority. Blockaded during the war, and without journals to guide opinion and correct error, or, we were unceasingly slandered by our enemies, who held possession of every avenue to the world's ear.
Famine and pestilence have ever followed war, as if our Mother Earth resented the defilement of her fair bosom by blood, and generated fatal diseases to punish humanity for its crimes. But there fell upon the South a calamity surpassing any recorded in the annals or traditions of man. An article in the "North American Review," from the pen of Judge Black, well describes this new curse, the carpet-baggers, as worse than Attila, scourge of God. He could only destroy existing fruits, while, by the modern invention of public credit, these caterans stole the labor of unborn generations. Divines, moralists, orators, and poets throughout the North commended their thefts and bade them God-speed in spoiling the Egyptians; and the reign of these harpies is not yet over. Driven from the outworks, they hold the citadel. The epithet of August, first applied to the mighty Julius and to his successor Octavius, was continued, by force of habit, to the slobbering Claudius; and so of the Senate of the United States, which august body contained in March last several of these freebooters. Honest men regarded them as monsters, generated in the foul ooze of a past era, that had escaped destruction to linger in a wholesomer age; and their speedy extinction was expected, when another, the most hideous of the species, was admitted. This specimen had been kept by force of bayonets for four years upon the necks of an unwilling people, had no title to a seat in the Senate, and was notoriously despised by every inhabitant of the State which he was seated to misrepresent. The Senators composing the majority by which this was done acted under solemn oaths to do the right; but the Jove of party laughs at vows of politicians. Twelve years of triumph have not served to abate the hate of the victors in the great war. The last presidential canvass was but a crusade of vengeance against the South. The favorite candidate of his party for the nomination, though in the prime of vigor, had not been in the field, to which his eloquent appeals sent thousands, but preferred the pleasanter occupation of making money at home. He had converted the power of his great place, that of Speaker of the House of Representatives, into lucre, and was exposed. By mingled chicanery and audacity he obtained possession of his own criminating letters, flourished them in the face of the House, and, in the Cambyses vein, called on his people to rally and save the luster of his loyalty from soil at the hands of rebels; and they came. From all the North ready acclaims went up, and women shed tears of joy, such as in King Arthur's day rewarded some peerless deed of Galahad. In truth, it was a manly thing to hide dishonorable plunder beneath the prostrate body of the South. The Emperor Commodus, in full panoply, met in the arena disabled and unarmed gladiators. The servile Romans applauded his easy victories. Ancient Pistol covers with patches the ignoble scabs of a corrupt life. The vulgar herd believes them to be wounds received in the Gallic wars, as it once believed in the virtue and patriotism of Marat and Barrère.
In the Sermon on the Mount, the Divine Moralist instructed his hearers to forgive those who had injured them; but He knew too well the malice of the human heart to expect them to forgive those whom they had injured. The leaders of the radical masses of the North have indicted such countless and cruel wrongs on the Southern people as to forbid any hope of disposition or ability to forgive their victims; and the land will have no rest until the last of these persecutors has passed into oblivion.
During all these years the conduct of the Southern people has been admirable. Submitting to the inevitable, they have shown fortitude and dignity, and rarely has one been found base enough to take wages of shame from the oppressor and maligner of his brethren. Accepting the harshest conditions and faithfully observing them, they have struggled in all honorable ways, and for what? For their slaves? Regret for their loss has neither been felt nor expressed. But they have striven for that which brought our forefathers to Runnymede, the privilege of exercising some influence in their own government. Yet we fought for nothing but slavery, says the world, and the late Vice-President of the Confederacy, Mr. Alexander Stephens, reëchoes the cry, declaring that it was the corner-stone of his Government.
The entirety of Gen. Taylor's account and experiences during the war can be read here: https://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/taylor/taylor.html
The first slavery in the US occurred in Puerto Rico - then ruled by the Spanish. They had enslaved the local indigenous population by 1500. The NYT notes the first delivery of African slaves to the Colonies in 1619, over 100 years later.
You might try to fight the FR tendency to denigrate an article without reading it first... It is actually a pretty good article.
I am pretty sure the indigenous people enslaved one another long before Europeans came.
“Those old, white, rich forefathers of ours formed a nation and GOT RID of it within 100 years”
For 76 years those old, white, rich forefathers, increased the slave population from 694,000 in 1790 to 3,953,000 in 1860. They made millions of dollars off of the labor of those slaves. It took a bloody 4 year war and an amendment to the Constitution to end the practice of slavery in this country.
Question: what happened?
Answer: We finally had a situation where the most powerful country in the world, at the time the English Empire, got closer to God at a personal level. Because the Anglos embraced Martin Luther's 5 Solas and recognized that their relationship with God was theirs to embrace, not dependent on others, our culture changed. The abolitionist movement grew from a grass-roots effort because the population was awakening to God. Of course, this extended outside England into other Anglo majority nations like the U.S., Canada, and Australia. We used our influence to push for abolition in the nations we traded with and made military alliances with. When the Allies won WW1 and the old Ottoman Empire was put under temporary English control while we were splitting it up to give power to the different groups within (our deal with them if they helped us overthrow the Ottoman Empire) England freed the slaves there. Dig it! Slaves were free in much of the middle east for the first time since....ever.
Bookmark
“It took a bloody 4 year war and an amendment to the Constitution to end the practice of slavery in this country.”
This article raises serious questions about the popular belief that the war was fought to end slavery.
If, as many believe, the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
Indeed so SanchoP.
The ‘cotton-brained’ ones are back - probably hiding behind different account names.
Former Vice President John C Breckinridge was the ultimate sore loser - the Al Gore of his day.
After failing to secure his parties nomination to ascend from VP to P, the loser split his party in two.
The disunion of the Democrats allowed the Republicans to gain the Presidency and the House for the first time ever.
After finishing second in the electoral college, John Breckinridge led his States into secession and war.
Breckinridge briefly served in the Senate, but was eventually expelled for TREASON.
Breckinridge then went to serve as a incompetent general for the South. He managed to fail in his campaign to take Baton Rouge.
He then served as Secretary if War for the south. Fleeing the capital, he failed to protect the other government leaders, but managed to personally escape.
“We finally had a situation where the most powerful country in the world, at the time the English Empire, got closer to God at a personal level.”
That is an interesting comment.
If slaves were freed because God told the North to “fight to free the slaves”, why didn’t the North fight to protect Native Americans from having their lands expropriated and the Indian nations themselves nearly extirpated?
Exactly what did God say to the North in regard to Native Americans?
Aren’t we restricted to ONLY discuss WHITE MAN BAD?
More revisionist pap.
Never claimed the war was fought to end slavery. However by the end of the war, only about 800,000 people were still legal slaves. Those 800,000 were freed by the XIII Amendment.
Right off the bat, no, hardly all historians agree with the PC Revisionist view that it was”all about slavery”. That has become a fashion in Academia since the 60s Leftists began their march through the institutions and started to get tenured professorships in universities in the early to mid 80s. That was not the majority view even in Academia before that. Plenty outside the Academy reject this Revisionist school of thought as do the majority of the American people.
The Virginia secession convention provides plenty of detail as to the cause of the secession and the resulting war.
The DEMOCRATS initiated the secession AND the war because they wanted to SPREAD slavery.
The REPUBLICAN party was formed in direct opposition to Douglas (D) “Kansas-Nebraska” act. This act violated the Missouri compromise of 30 years prior that sought to limit slavery. It allowed both Kansas and Nebraska tertitories to become slave states by majority votes.
This ill considered law gave us ten bloody years in Kansas before the civil war.
DEMOCRAT fireeaters - led by the treasonous vice president John C Breckenridge were not content to keep their slaves. THEY WERE SEEKING TO EXPAND SLAVERY. They wanted to take their ‘property’ to every location they could settle.
SO DEMOCRATS SECEEDED AND THEN INITIATED HOSTILE ACTION.
On the other hand,
REPUBLICANS were adamantly opposed to slavery but were seeking to remove the institution in a peaceful manner.
President Lincoln sought one compromise after another to avoid the bloody civil war - up to and including the Corwin amendment.
So the REPUBLICAN and LINCOLNS initial purpose for fighiting was to ‘PRESERVE THE UNION’.
However, after much bloodshed, Lincoln expanded his goals to ENDING SLAVERY. The horrible consequences having already been thrust upon the nation by toxic, treasonous DEMOCRATS.
At the Virginia Secession convention - a near thing - speakers from the Seceeding States spoke to the convention to give their reasoning for their actions. Here are the words of the Georgia delegate to Virginia. The cause of the Civil War between Republicans and Democrats does not get any clearer than this.
First paragraph:
“I have been appointed by the Convention of the State of Georgia, to present to this Convention (Virginia), the ordinance of secession of Georgia,
and further, to invite Virginia, thorough this Convention, to join Georgie and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.
This, sir, is the whole extent of my mission….”
Second paragraph:
”What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession?
This reason may be summed up in one single proposition.
It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia,
that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery.
This conviction, sir, was the main cause.
It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil,
.... {Note: This ‘fugitive slave evil’
.... being the the refusal of some Republicans
.... in Northern States
.... to refuse to return escaped slaves}
and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil.
.... {Note: This ‘territorial evil’
.... would be the Missouri compromise
.... from thirty or forty years prior
.... where the territories were declared free
.... and slaves were not allowed.
.... The democrats wished to take their slaves
.... with them.}
But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken.
It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.”
………..Honorable Henry L. Benning, of Georgia
……………addressing the Virginia State Convention
……………on Monday, February 18, 1861
……………the Fifth day of the Convention
....
.... The second speaker from the other States after Mississippi.
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.