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
The South wanted to secede... get it?
HMS Surprise was Capt. Aubrey’s ship in Master and Commander. Chris Christie smirked at an inappropriate moment. Yes, it’s that simple.
A self admitted liar, you are.
i do enjoy one thing you, rockrr, kstate, x and your buddies enjoy as a valid argument....
use amendments, laws, supreme court rulings, hague conventions, or whatever else - all of which happen AFTER an illegal event - to defend the “legality” of the precursor. I’ll concede that I’ll never recognize the legitimacy of such arguments. (Nor any “he said, she said” defense.)
Acting in accordance with the written law is “legal”, and in defiance is “illegal”. If there is no written law forbidding state action or delegating the federal government jurisdiction in such actions (i.e. “secession”), then to act with force against it is “illegal” (see 10th Amndmt). To argue that its legality simply because you think it was “worth it” is just “stupid”.
They would not have ratified the Constitution if they would have known that the North would levy superior influence in Congress to destroy Southern commerce. Slavery is a red herring. If the North truly abhored slavery, THEY would have seceded.
If the North really abhored slavery, THEY would have seceded. Obviously most Yankees could have cared less about Southern slaves.
One can secede legally, by amendment, and perhaps by successful court case, or by legislation and subsequent treaty. One doesn’t legally secede by coerced vote of the people, just as one doesn’t get a divorce by emptying the bank accounts, kidnapping or murdering the children, and setting fire to the house.
So the black slave owner was indeed fighting for slavery, as were the rest of the southrons. He must have been disappointed when freed blacks were re-enslaved by pretended confederate law.
never was a more solid, convincing legal argument, nor strikingly appropriate analogy made (/sarc)
If you have something worth while to say, do so but I’m not going to be baited into the idiocy this thread has become.
Wars are not fought to help the downtrodden and oppressed but for power and control. Go back to the shouting match.
Of course the northern states had the right to end slavery within their borders. They also had the right to vote for appropriate tariff levels. They also had the right to vote to accept or reject applications for statehood.
Or which of these states’ rights do you oppose? Or do only southern slave owners have rights?
The southerners, say you, thought they could develop more rapidly than the north due to slavery. That just shows that the southerners were wrong about that too.
So, what does that have to do with anything...? The North could have chosen to allow the South to go their own way, and by doing so washed their hands of the whole issue. Instead, like many instances throughout history, the North chose war instead of peace.
So, people are not allowed determine their own destiny? I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence.
Lincoln’s decisions led to the death of 500,000 Americans. I would call that an Epic Failure.
Fixed it for ya.
Nice series of logical fallacies you've got going on.
The north went to war to save the union; the south went to war to save slavery. The north ended up fighting to save the slaves; the south ended up fighting (and losing) to save their confederacy.
Yes, you are so right. The South was determined from the beginning to march straight to Boston and piss in the harbor. Obviously the victors write the history books, but some people can think for themselves though.
And the losers write the myths.
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.