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
“Inferring that you behave like a message board troll is not ad hominem.”
That’s implying, not inferring. And yes it is.
“I’m not dismissing a point you made because you’re of the ogre genus”
Well, not a point, but my points in general, yes.
“Saying ‘return to your bridge’ is merely my way of saying you fail at thinking (aka an ‘insult’, not a logical fallacy).”
No it isn’t. Might as well say calling someone “stupid” is saying they argued badly. It isn’t. It’s ignoring their points and attacking them as a person.
“I consider that worthy of an insult”
Then you insult them, not me. Otherwise it’s ad hominem.
“holding a mature conversation has proven to be the only legitimate Lost Cause here.”
More of that sharp wit. I knew that at the end of the day you’d never believe those who disagree with you were anything but trolls, liars, ignoramuses, argumentative cheaters, etc. It was a foregone conclusion.
They couldn’t possibly just disagree, given how Awesome, Smart, Informed, and Reasonable you are, not to mention how much Evidence and Quotes you have, and how many Books you’ve read. Everyone else tries to coast by on half-truths and gorilla dust. But not on your watch!
“Repeatedly dismissing, belittling, ignoring, and (by any means possible) deflecting away from such facts”
By the way, I know it makes me look like and unreasonable ingoramous to dismiss your captain’s letter. But to be fair, you must realize that to anyone who has seriously studied international relations arguing mobilization is an act of war is like saying “water is not wet.” Don’t cast stones from your glass house.
“Again you go to DiLorenzo (never read) et al modern authors as your ‘authorities’ while ignoring the original sources.”
Huh? I only mentioned him passingly as part of the min-memoir you asked me to write. He’s by no means one of my authorities, as he mostly agrees with you.
“said i couldn’t give a turd about a political entity known as the CSA”
Yes you could. You could give lots of turds.
I recall you divorcing secession proper from the historical example of the Confederacy. Secession is bigger than the Confederacy, okay, got it. In the meantime, you’ve said more in support of the Confederacy than I could possibly repost. What do I believe, then, your words or your words?
“couldn’t care if we were called ‘Russia’ right now so long as we operated by a strict rule of law protecting individual liberty and state sovereignty”
That’s quite a non-sequitor. I didn’t suggest you’re a supporter of whatever happens to go by the title “CSA,” but the historical political entity known as the CSA.
“when all else fails, return to your safe mischaracterizations and stereotypes.”
At the earliest convenience, you abandon substance for vague accusations and/or points of ettiquette.
“I obviously don’t agree with your ‘shoot-first’ premise, so try not to make any bad assumptions”
Don’t worry, I’d never assume you do.
“and was generally preceded by a statement warning that certain acts would be considered acts of war and would trigger hostilities.”
“Certain acts”? And these could be just whatever one or another side says? For instance, if I warned an opposing nation that if they allow their citizens to continue eating hamburgers and they continue I’m free to attack them? Or does the warning have to conform to traditionally recongized causes of war? Has mobilization ever been one of those traditionally accepted acts of war? No, never!
Look, I’m just gonna leave it at this. If you don’t know that there needs to have been prior conflict for their to be an armistice and that mobilization is not an act of war it’s not worth talking to you.
It’s my turn to monitor you, ns.
Okay, okay, I can’t resist. One more post.
“How about Congress formally declaring the start of the Spanish American War’s ‘state of war’ as the prior blockade of Cuba (i.e. before Spain declared war, before any shots were fired)?”
I don’t really know the timeline of events that well. I don’t know when a blockade started compared to when the U.S. stuck its nose in compared to when Cuban rebels rose. I do know a condition of civil war existed before we declared war. I also know we declared war before Spain fired shots at us. Which would make it akin to Obama’s justification for the Libyan War. That is, that shots had already been fired between Quadaffi and the rebels began, and as such we didn’t start it. Though, of course, what had started had nothing to do with us, which means that unless you think the International Community is the enforcer of a permanent armistice between all nations at all times, we fired first.
We started the Spanish war without specific provocation (apart from an erroneous perceived provocation to be named shortly), and perhaps it would have happened under any circumstance, as that’s obviously what we desired. But as you well know, there was a “first shot,” at least in the popular mind (and if it’s in the popular mind, you know it’s in the political mind): the bogus “attack” on the Maine. Remember the Maine!
“How many ‘first shots’ did Iraq fire at us in our most recent invasion? Who was the aggressor there?”
I’ve already dealt with this, but as you must know there was a ceasefire in 1991 following our repulsion of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. That established a genuine armistice (i.e. an peace agreement in the midst of war), which we declared Iraq to have repeatedly broken.
I don’t know why you’re asking these questions. They’re the wrong questions.
I only married a cousin, you unlettered swine.
Except that if the union was preserved, then the union is indeed perpetual. I will note that the last president under the Articles of Confederation stood next to Washington as he took his oath of office. Washington was our 17th president by my count. Hancock was first, having as president of Continental Congress signed Declaration of Independence.
But if you believe, as I think your indicating, that all states are sovereign entities and can leave the union at any time for any reason, they could still do so. Now tell me again, do you think that sounds rational? Do you actually want to live in a country where individual segments can go (or re-enter I suppose) willy-nilly? Just on that basis alone, forget about legality for a second, secession is ridiculous.
The loser of any argument is the first one to use Hitlerian terms for ad hominemn purposes. You still haven’t properly answered a number of my questions. Mostly because I assume you can’t. You rant on about situations that have nothing to do with my contention that the idea of states leaving the union under any pretext is rather silly. So wherever you live, Pennsylvania I presume, would you like your state to presently leave the union and establish itself as a separate country? Yes or no? If you say yes, tell me how you’re going to do it. Operate a new country that is.
I am unclear why you think I should be surprised that criminals, many of them from the northern UN, violated federal law to continue in the slave trade after it became illegal.
I am also unclear how this is something “the north” did.
Is “the midwest” responsible for most of the production of meth in this country, or are criminals who live there responsible?
Did northern firms probably fit out and own these ships despite the laws? Almost certainly. Should the directors of these firms have been hanged as pirates? You betcha.
Were they able to escape punishment or even arrest because of disinterest on the part of officials in aggressively prosecuting the law or due to influence? Sure.
Just like the southern planters and slave traders who bought the slaves they brought in were for the most part able to get away with it.
While the slave trade continued, illegal though it was, after 1807, I strongly suspect you are exaggerating its volume. In particular, I’d like to point out that most slaves probably went to Brazil and the Islands rather than the US. Much shorter passage greatly reduced the chance of being caught and allowed more trips in a given period.
Of all slaves brought across the Atlantic over the entire period of the slave trade, <5% came to what is now the US.
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.