Al Mccray is a Tampa businessman and managing editor of TampaNewsAndTalk.com.
Posted on 04/25/2011 9:31:58 AM PDT by Iron Munro
I am responding to a column by Leonard Pitts Jr., a noted black columnist for The Miami Herald, entitled, "The Civil War was about slavery, nothing more" (Other Views, April 15).
I found this article to be very misleading and grossly riddled with distortions of the real causes of the War Between the States. I find it so amusing that such an educated person would not know the facts.
I am a proud native of South Carolina. I have spent my entire life in what was once the Confederate States of America. I am currently associated with Southern Heritage causes, including the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Tampa.
It's been 150 years since brave, patriotic Southerners drove the imperialist Yankee army from Fort Sumter, S.C. It also marked the beginning of the Confederates' fight to expel this foreign army from the entire Southern homeland.
After all these years, there still exists national historical ignorance and lies about this war. The War Between the States was about states' rights — not about slavery.
Remember, the original colonies voluntarily joined the union and never gave up their individual sovereignty. These independent states always retained their right to manage their domestic affairs and to leave this voluntary association at any time.
This voluntary union was for limited reasons such as national defense from the foreign powers, one language, interstate commerce, disputes between the sovereign states and matters of foreign affairs.
When the Southern states tried to leave this union, the Northerners had to put a stop to this. The slavery issue was masterly inserted into the movement of Yankee aggression.
We are a union of independent and sovereign states free to determine our own destiny. This sovereignty is meant to be free of Yankee federal domination and control. This should still be in principle and practice today as it was before the first cannon shots at Fort Sumter.
Slavery of any people is wicked and morally wrong. Domination of one people over another is just as evil and morally wrong.
The facts are that throughout history, just about every race of people has been slaves to another people. Slavery has always been a failed institution and a dark mark in history. One-hundred years before the first slave made it to the auction blocks in Virginia, African kings were running a booming enterprise of selling their own people into slavery. It was also customary that defeated people became slaves.
Slavery as an institution worldwide was coming to an end before the War Between the States. Slavery in America would probably have come to an end within 50 years.
The great eternal lie — that the war was to "free the slaves" — is still being propagandized today by modern spin-makers, schools and even scholars. But the facts are plain and quite evident if you were to take off your Yankee sunglasses.
The Army of the Potomac invaded the South to capture, control and plunder the prosperity of Southern economic resources and its industries. This army also wanted to put a final nail in the coffin of states' rights.
If, and I say this with a big if , the War Between the States was to free the slaves, please answer these simple questions:
Why didn't President Lincoln issue a proclamation on day one of his presidency to free the slaves? Why did he wait so many years later to issue his proclamation? Why was slavery still legal in the Northern states? Before 1864, how many elected members of the imperialist Yankee Congress introduced legislation to outlaw slavery anywhere in America?
The slaves were freed — and only in territories in rebellion against the North — because the Army of the Potomac was not winning the war and Lincoln was fearful of foreign nations recognizing the Confederacy.
The Northern states needed a war to fuel their economy and stop the pending recession. The North needed rebellion in the South to cause havoc in the Confederate states. The North wanted the hard foreign currency being generated by Southern trade.
I hope this year not only marks the celebration of the brave actions of Southerners to evict the Northern Army at Fort Sumter but leads to the truthful revision of history about the war. Future generations should know the truth.
Al Mccray is a Tampa businessman and managing editor of TampaNewsAndTalk.com
Al Mccray is a Tampa businessman and managing editor of TampaNewsAndTalk.com.
Sweet. I’ll go grab the popcorn!
IMHO slavery was a symptom, secession was the disease. at the onset of hostilities, Lincoln’s priority was saving the union.
Americans don’t want to believe that 100s of thousands of Americans died over tariffs.
slavery was a symptom, secession was the disease.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina
Game, Set, and Match.
“Preserving” the Union with grapeshot and double canister is a bit of a contradiction, isn’t it?
There were 5 main reasons of the war. Go to this site:
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect that it will cease to be divided. It will become all the one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, north as well as south." Abraham Lincoln, June 16, 1858, Address to the Republican Convention
Is “Because Yankees Suck” on the list?
Question: Would the South have seceded if they weren’t afraid that Lincoln would free the slaves, something that he admitted that he did not have the Constitutional authority to do?
Ever since the phrase “states rights” has been mocked and the object of hatred. Contradiction that the assumption of States Rights is one of the foundations of the Constitution.
“Preserving” the Union with grapeshot and double canister is a bit of a contradiction, isn’t it?
Yeah, thats crazy,,forcibly preserving a relationship where one party wants to amicably leave. Why, that’d be like,,forcing people to work on your farm against their will, or something nutty like that.
The reason why the racist Lincoln wanted to stop slavery in the territories because he thought the west should be for whites only and not spoiled with blacks. Yes, Lincoln was a racist to the nth degree.
Question: Would the South have accepted a compensated emancipation?
My essential point is this: if you actually read that what was written by the legislature-- they tell you that the war is about slavery. They made the decision to go to war--and they told us why.
In 1860 there were only a handful of saints that weren’t racist to the nth degree.
Abraham Lincoln comment on the National Bank Act, February 1863
He was right! He saved the union but the republic was destroyed as a result!
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.