Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > Tropical_Man > Meriam's Guy |
|
Thomas Sowell on Slavery and "Roots" Thomas Sowell on Slavery and "Roots" Please read this column but don't stop there. If you want a true understanding of slavery and specifically, African slavery, you must dig deeper. Try Hugh Thomas' THE SLAVE TRADE which is listed on the Suggested Reading page. The central point is that Alex Haley's "Roots" is a farce, but a particularly evil farce written specifically to cast the white Southerner as the evil doer when in fact it was the African slave trader who actually kidnapped African people and them sold as slaves to Yankee ship captains who transported them across the Atlantic . Everyone in the chain of this evil enterprise shares equal guilt with the eventual slave owner---but that's not shown in ROOTS. continued below as Article begins 
|
|||
|
"ROOTS" was the only book I knew my teenage son to read, aside from assigned school books, computer manuals and chess books. He was thrilled to receive a copy autographed by Alex Haley, courtesy of George Haley, his brother, whom I had met. Alex Haley himself I never really met, though I saw him in person once because we went to the same barber in Los Angeles. Both then and in his television appearances, Alex Haley seemed like a very decent man. That is why it is especially painful to have to recognize, now that the television series based on "Roots" is going to be re-run on its 25th anniversary, that its enormous success a quarter of a century ago was a tragedy for blacks and for American society in general. Why a tragedy? The short answer is what Winston Churchill said during World War II: "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Some disastrous policies had been followed in the years leading up to World War II, and Churchill had sharply criticized those policies at the time but, now that the war was on, looking back could only interfere with the life-and-death job at hand. There are some very big jobs at hand for black America -- and looking back at centuries past is a costly distraction from the work that needs to be done here and now. Moreover, the past that people are looking back at in "Roots" is not a wholly real past. When challenged by professional historians, Alex Haley called his work "faction" -- part fact and part fiction. He said that he had tried to give his people some myths to live by. It was not that "Roots" merely got some details wrong. It presented some crucially false pictures of what had actually happened -- false pictures that continue to dominate thinking today. "Roots" has a white man leading a slave raid in West Africa, where the hero Kunta Kinte was captured, looking bewildered at the chains put on him as he was led away in bondage. The village elders were likewise bewildered as to what these white men were doing, carrying their people away. In reality, West Africa was a center of slave trading before the first white man arrived there -- and slavery continues in parts of it to this very moment. Africans sold vast numbers of other Africans to Europeans. But they hardly let Europeans go running around in their territory, catching people willy-nilly. Because of the false picture of history presented by "Roots" and by other sources, last year we had the farce of the president of Nigeria making demands on the United States because of the enslavement of people whom his own countrymen had enslaved, and on behalf of a country where slavery still persists, more than a century after emancipation has occurred throughout the Western world. "Roots" also feeds the gross misconception that slavery was about white people enslaving black people. The tragedy of slavery was of a far greater magnitude than that. People of every race and color were both slaves and enslavers, for thousands of years, all around the world. Europeans enslaved other Europeans for centuries before the first African was brought across the Atlantic. Asians enslaved other Asians, as well as whatever Europeans they could get hold of. Slavery existed in the Western Hemisphere before Columbus ever got here. Slavery, like cancer, was not limited to any particular country or race. To talk about cancer as if it were an American disease, or a white or black disease, would be absurd. If reparations were to be paid for slavery, everybody on this planet would owe everybody else. There is no danger of that actually happening. The danger is that too many blacks, especially among the young and the ill-educated, will be backing into the third millennium still looking back at centuries past -- or at fictions about centuries past -- when there are opportunities all around them that most people in the rest of the world today would die for. The ancestors of black Americans were not taken from some Eden, and there is no Eden for black Americans to return to today. If compensation were to be paid for the difference between where they are and where their ancestors came from, they would owe money, not receive money. But it would be ridiculous to lose the future because of the past. Thomas Sowell -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The links below will lead the reader to a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the Confederate Cause.
| ||
|
The following is obviously condensed and intended as merely a refresher designed to prime the reader's historical and civics knowledge and provide a context for the political and economic discussions that follow. A basic understanding of the principles of our Republic may be obtained from a reading of The Declaration of Independence , The Federalist Papers , the Anti-Federalist Papers , and the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments . There are prior and subsequent historical documents which provide additional insight (e.g., correspondence of the Continental Congress[1774-76], the Declaration of Rights and Grievances , the correspondence related to the Articles of Confederation [1781-1788], etc.), however, The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, as a serial publication advocating and opposing adoption (ratification) of the U.S. Constitution, is recognized as the most comprehensive discussion and elaboration on central or national government issues and political theory in general. The Constitutional Convention was an extended debate and series of compromises that took place over the first nine months of 1787. Once the final draft of the proposed Constitution was submitted to Congress in September 1787, the proposed federal government would "begin" once nine of the thirteen states ratified it. The first Anti-Federalist Paper and Federalist Paper were published in October 1787. The state conventions were heated debates and most were very close votes. The ninth state ratified in June 1788, with two key addional states, Virginia and New York, to follow. The Federalist Papers were for the purpose of justifying the need to have a stronger federal government (stronger than the existing Articles of Confederation) and to allay the fears of those who, justifiably, feared the consolidation of power that such a federal government might eventually allow. In short, the Federalist Papers were written in rebuttal to the "Anti-Federalist Papers," which were a series of letters critical of the proposed Constitution and published in newspapers under various pseudonyms such as "Brutus," "Cato," and "Cincinnatus." The Framers at the Constitutional Convention had to devise a Constitution that would limit government sufficiently to overcome the prevailing distrust of any centralized government---enough so to persuade state conventions to ratify it. Having endured an eight year struggle to secede from the British Empire, most Americans wanted to avoid another supreme ruler in a distant capitol. Constitutional scholar Forrest McDonald describes the Constitution's text and design as follows: "The Constitution was designed to bring government under the rule of law, as opposed to achieving any specific purposes....Fully 20 percent of the text is specification of things the government, state of federal, may not do . Only 11 percent is concerned with positive grants of power.....The main body of the Constitution, more than two thirds of it, addresses the task of making government act in accordance with law." The Framers of our Constitution were a diverse group in terms of views and backgrounds but most had an aversion to the abuse of power. These leaders were educated and well-read men who were only too familiar with the tendencies of tyrants and oppressive government. Their understanding of human nature and the corrupting influence of power was demonstrated in all they wrote and in the blueprint for our Republic. They drew knowledge from the history of European and Middle-Eastern monarchies and republics and the Greek experiments in democracy and republics. Read the Quotes page for a selection of observations advanced by the Framers. The Framers divided primarily into three camps. The Federalists advocated a stronger central government---stronger than the existing Articles of Confederation. Among them, there were the "extreme" federalists (e.g., Alexander Hamilton) who favored a national government with states as subordinate political subdivisions. The "moderate" federalists favored a stronger federal goverment to achieve the goals outlined in the Federalist Papers, but remaining subordinate to the states such that state and local governments would perform the vast majority of appropriate domestic governing (see the excerpt from Federalist Paper No. 45 below). James Madison was at first an extreme federalist, but modified his views during the Convention debates to that of a moderate. George Washington was a moderate federalist and his views held great sway. The Anti-Federalists (e.g., Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, George Mason, George Clinton, et al) favored no central government at all, preferring to retain the existing Articles of Confederation. Once the Constitution was ratified by sufficient states, most of the Anti-Federalists became part of the states rights party, known as the "Republicans" and later the "Democratic-Republicans." Most of the moderate federalists and all of the anti-federalists feared the consolidation of power within a central government and painstakingly documented their intent within the Constitution to reserve the rights of the "sovereign and independent" states based on the principle that decentralized government ---government closer to home---was the best guardian of liberties. They reasoned that by spreading the power, natural jealousies would give various governments and branches within those governments incentives to guard against usurpations or power abuses by others. Keeping most government activities close to home would ensure, they reasoned, that the people would best be able to influence government and have it best represent them to protect their liberties. Arguing that a national legislature, without limitations, would rule just as tyrranically as any single king, Thomas Jefferson said, "The concentrating [of powers] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one." "It is not by the consolidation, or concentration, of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected." --Thomas Jefferson "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." -- Thomas Jefferson Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists argued than any stronger central government would be oppressive. Jefferson suggested that the Federalists would establish "a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry." It now seems prophetic that Jefferson predicted exactly what would and did happen beginning in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln. George Washington and other moderate federalists believed that the most serious threat to the republic was sectional factions gaining power to exploit their fellow states within the republic. Sectional frictions did, in fact, ensue in very short order. To counter Jefferson's arguments, Madison and the other Federalists (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay) argued at length in the Federalist Papers that essential liberties would be protected and that the federal government would be constrained by its founding charter, the Constitution. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. --James Madison, author of our Constitution, in Federalist Paper No. 45 In addition, within the Constitution, they tried to establish a system of checks and balances [Federalist #51] to prevent any one branch of the proposed federal government from growing too strong at the expense of others and at the expense of our liberties in general. The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution spelled out in plain language the intent that states would be the dominant guardians of liberty and remain the supreme governments. The first ten Amendments, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, was written to appease demands by state delegates that the rights of individuals and their general agents, the state legislatures, would reserve all rights not specifically delegated to the federal government. Massachussetts withheld its ratification until assured that a Bill of Rights would be added to address their concerns. George Mason, a prominent Anti-Federalist, wrote most of the Bill of Rights as adopted. The Constitution, by design, did not specifically prohibit secession. Therefore, by virtue of both the 9th and 10th Amendments, the states reserved the right to withdraw from the federal union for any reason deemed appropriate by such state. More on the principle and right of secession follows in Section 2 and subsequent sections. The links below will lead the reader to a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the Confederate Cause. Government as the Founders intended Secession in principle : Part I Secession in principle: Part II Secession in principle: Part III Causes of the War Slavery worldwide and in the New World Propaganda against southern heritage and symbols What does the Confederate flag represent? Conclusions
| ||
|
Clearly, the Framers intended for secession to be a last resort measure, but recognized that it was a requirement for states to remain independent and supreme. The state legislatures, as representatives of the people, would not have agreed to ratify the Constitution in 1787 unless the sovereignty and independence of the several states were protected and preserved. The maintenance of state militias and limitations on a federal armed forces were intended to keep the balance of power on the side of the states. But there is further evidence that secession was a generally accepted right retained by the states. On numerous occasions, secession was advanced as a possible resolution to sectional disputes. Secession was expressed as a right by the New England states in 1803, 1811, 1815 and 1845. In 1803, when the Louisiana Purchase was proposed, the New England states opposed it. Timothy Pickering attempted to form a secession movement among the New England states and New York. It failed when Aaron Burr lost his bid to be Governor of New York. On Jan. 14, 1811, Rep. Josiah Quincy (1772-1864) of Massachussetts, threatened Congress that his state would secede if Louisiana were admitted as a state. In 1815, the Hartford Convention was held in secret to address the need for New England states to secede. The New England states had suffered economically due to the ongoing hostilities with Britain (War of 1812) and secession was thought to be a means of striking a bargain to resume northern shipping commerce. In 1845, the New England states again threatened to secede because they opposed the admission of Texas as a state. They opposed any new state which would be sympathetic to existing southern states. This was just 15 years before Lincoln and his Republican party decided that secession was no longer a right and that a bloody war was justified to prevent any state from seceding. In 1844, abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison advocated northern secession to avoid association with slave states in a speech to the annual meeting of the Anti-Slavery Society of America which was published in the Anti-Slavery Examiner. Were Josiah Quincy, Timothy Pickering or William Lloyd Garrison ever called traitors ? No. Was the right of the New England states to secede ever challenged? No. It was a generally accepted right. Why then, beginning in 1861, were the southern states labeled as "treasonous" and "rebellious" for exercising their rights? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession of 3,000,000 colonists in 1776, I do not see why the Constitution ratified by the same men should not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of the Southerners from the Federal Union in 1861... We have repeatedly said, and we once more insist that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that government derives its power from the consent of the governed is sound and just, then if the Cotton States, the Gulf States or any other States choose to form an independent nation they have a clear right to do it... The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless; and we do not see how one party can have a right to do what another party has a right to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof; to withdraw from the Union is another matter. And when a section of our Union resolves to go out, we shall resist any coercive acts to keep it in. We hope never to live in a Republic where one section is pinned to the other section by bayonets ." --Horace Greeley, New York Tribune [ full editorial 12/17/1860 ] "If the right of secession be denied...and the denial enforced by the sword of coercion; the nature of the polity is changed, and freedom is at its end. It is no longer a government by consent, but a government of force. Conquest is substituted compact, and the dream of liberty is over." --Albert Taylor Bledsoe, from Is Davis a Traitor? In 1788, the Massachusetts state convention ratified entry into the Union by a vote of just 187 to 168. Let us suppose that, a couple of years later, a second vote has rescinded the first, and Massachusetts respectfully announced: “Upon further consideration, we have decided that belonging to the Union is not in the state’s best interest.“ I wonder if anyone can imagine George Washington issuing the following proclamation: “ It has come to my attention that Massachusetts intends to depart the Union. I declare Massachusetts in rebellion! I am requesting the Governors of the states to muster armies which are to proceed to Massachusetts and invade it. I am dispatching federal warships to blockade Boston Harbor. Upon capture, the city is to be burned to the ground. Federal commanders shall torch other Massachusetts cities and towns as they see fit. “I, George Washington, do further declare, that because the people of Massachusetts have perpetrated this brazen treason, all their rights are forthwith revoked. Of course, if any Massachusetts resident disavows his state’s dastardly decision, and swears an oath of loyalty to the federal government, his rights shall be restored. Such cases excepted, federal soldiers should feel free to loot any Massachusetts home. Crops not seized for army provisions should be destroyed without regards to the needs of the rebels and their families. After all, war is hell. “And to citizens of other states, take warning! Consorting with the Massachusetts rebels will not be tolerated. It has come to my attention, in fact, that certain leaders and legislators in New Hampshire and Connecticut have expressed sympathy for their cause ! I am ordering federal troops to round up these “border state “ turncoats. They will [be] jailed without hearings. I hereby revoke the right of habeas corpus just accorded under the Constitution. In times as these, suspicion alone shall be suitable cause for imprisonment....” No one believes Washington would have issued such a proclamation. And if he had, he would have swung from a tree. True, Lincoln did not state things so bluntly, but the foregoing accurately reflects Yankee policy. What had changed between 1789 and 1861 to warrant such a response? --James Perloff, article in Southern Partisan, 2nd Quarter 1997 [ Full Article ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given the preceding, secession was a generally accepted right, a right asserted as available to northern states to be exercised at their discretion. But in 1861, the U.S. Government asserted that it was not a right (at least not a Southern right), and "preserving the Union" was its first justification for bloody conquest (followed later by abolition). Therefore, the victorious conquerer had to continue to maintain that secession was wrong during the post-war occupation. If secession were really "treason," then one would expect that dozens of Confederate leaders would be tried and convicted for such offenses leading to such destruction, right? Read the next section (Part II  to see how confident the victors were in their convictions.The links below will lead the reader to a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the Confederate Cause. Government as the Founders intended Secession in principle: Part I Secession in principle: Part II Secession in principle: Part III Causes of the War Slavery worldwide and in the New World Propaganda against southern heritage and symbols What does the Confederate flag represent? Conclusions
| ||
|
Given that the secession was a right and that the invasion and war was unconstitutional, Yankee myth-makers had to begin immediate propaganda to disguise their motives and their naked aggression. Confederate patriots were labeled "rebels" and "traitors." The post-war abuse of Confederate States of America President Jefferson Davis serves to illustrate the truth of the Confederate Cause and to expose the Yankee lies. The commander of Andersonville POW camp, Major Henry Wirz, was convicted in a sham trial where he was not allowed to present key defense witnesses and the prosecution's key witness was later identified as a deserter from the New York 7th Regiment, Felix Oeser, who perjured himself and testified under the name, De la Baume. More on POW policies in a later section. Wirz was convicted for the murder of two unnamed prisoners in August of 1864, at a time when he was away from the camp on sick leave. Suffice it to say that Major Wirz was not guilty of any war crimes. He was scheduled for execution. On the night before his execution, a representative of the federal government came to Wirz' cell and told Wirz that he would be pardoned, his life would be spared, if he implicated CSA President Jefferson Davis as being aware of and encouraging war crimes against union prisoners. Wirz declined to lie about Davis or any other Confederate and was hanged the next day. Wirz' minister, present in Wirz' last hours, witnessed this brazen attempt to subborn perjury and took Wirz' final letter to his family assuring them that he was innocent of the charges. The minister later documented the entire ugly affair. CSA President Jefferson Davis was held in a federal prison for two years without trial. He was charged with "treason" and conspiracy in the assassination of Lincoln. The conspiracy charge was deemed so ridiculous it was soon dropped. Davis was held in inpregnable Fortress Monroe but to inflict cruelty, Davis was shackled in chains and held in solitary confinement depite his poor health. Davis longed for his day in court to make the case for the Confederate Cause---to prove in a court of law that he was not guilty of treason and that the Confederate States had the right to secede. The best attorneys in the nation volunteered their services pro bono. It would have been the "trial of the century" and reporters from around the world would have been present. The United States government realized how flimsy their case was. There was no way they could risk a trial. The acquittal of Jefferson Davis would undo the propaganda of the U.S. government and show the world that the Confederate Cause was right. The trial was canceled and the man Dishonest Abe called a "traitor" was released. Denied the opportunity to clear his own name and that of all Confederate patriots in court, Davis expressed his case in his own two volume book , The Rise and Fall of the Conferate Government. Author and syndicated columnist Joseph Sobran had this to say about Davis's book: "It was dry, legalistic, humorless and lacking in the stylistic felicity of a Lincoln or a U.S. Grant...But Davis's history does have one great merit: cogency. The hundred pages he devotes to explaining secession can't be called light reading, but they show why the government didn't want to let Davis have his day in court. These 15 chapters display a profound grasp of not only the Constitution, but of the writings of the real 'greatest generation'----of Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. These are works of political philosophy that the Northern leaders, particularly Lincoln, were only dimly aware of. If more Americans had read them, we might have been spared the Civil War." This writer disagrees with Mr. Sobran on only one point. The writings of President Lincoln demonstrate that he understood the Constitutional principles and secession perfectly well. He merely decided that his own purposes and political future were more important than the Constitution. Any fair reading of the Founding documents coupled with a reasonable understanding of the Founding principles of government make clear that secession was a right retained by the states. The Southern states exercised these rights for reasons to be discussed at length in subsequent sections. The United States government, controlled by the sectional Republican party of the north, for reasons primarily economic and in pursuit of political dominance, chose to violate the spirit of the Founding principles and to force a union at the point of a bayonet rather than to have government whose just powers are "derived from the consent of the governed." In so doing, they effectively ended the Republic as delivered to us by the Framers of the Constitution and substituted in its stead, an empire ruled by elitists in Washington. Over the years since, the concentration of power by the federal government has increased exponentially. Ironically, by justifying their bloody conquest as necessary to "preserve the union," these unscrupulous men (Lincoln's war party) used sophistry to disguise their destruction of the Constitution and plunder of the South, and in the process, destroyed the Union they professed to revere. A union by force is not a a union by consent, and as Albert Bledsoe put it, "Conquest is substituted for compact, and the dream of liberty is over." The War restored the physical boundaries of the Union but not the spirit of the Constitutional union. The South became conquered territory to be exploited. It is the moral equivalent of the Soviets forcing Poland and the Baltic republics to remain in the Soviet Union or the the British forcing India or the American colonies to remain in their empire. Tyrants can always find an excuse for conquest. Why was there a war? Because Lincoln and his government chose not to allow the southern states to leave in peace. The Southern states did not seek conquest or overthrow of the U.S. Government but rather simply sought to withdraw from a union they voluntarily joined---as was their right. Why did the Southern states secede? These issues will be addressed in the next sections. The links below will lead the reader to a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the Confederate Cause. Government as the Founders intended Secession in principle: Part I Secession in principle: Part II Secession in principle: Part III Causes of the War Slavery worldwide and in the New World Propaganda against southern heritage and symbols What does the Confederate flag represent? Conclusions
| ||
|
causes of the war: In the previous sections, we established the motives and intentions of the Framers of our Constitution as well as the fact that secession was a legitimate and constitutional right. Furthermore, we established that the U.S. government of 1861 denied that secession was a right and declared willingness to wage a bloody war to prove it. In the process, the Constitutional Union they ostensibly sought to "preserve" was destroyed and replaced with an empire ruled by elitists in a central capitol. "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." --John S. Tilley,The Coming of the Glory The previous sections were necessary to support the conclusions reached in the analysis that follows. We're now prepared to evaluate the ultimate question, a question about which there remains a good deal of misunderstanding ---some caused by deliberate and malicious propaganda and some by benevolent ignorance----and the answer to which leads to many significant points that are relevant to the present 21st Century, the third century of American independence. [Please read this last paragraph again.] The ultimate question is.... Why was there a war? The answer in simplest terms is... because Lincoln and his government chose not to allow the southern states to leave in peace. But let's resist the temptation to over-simplify. All the wars of human history can be boiled down to three causes which often overlap: Envy/Greed: One party desires to take something (territory, water rights, gold, wealth) someone else has Distrust/Fear: One party fears the other party or parties (militarily) and decides to attack first Arrogance: One party believes the other party inferior or contrary to their beliefs (religion, slavery, oppression, lack of technology) All the above came into play in the war in question. Let's evaluate the causes of the War for Southern Independence by breaking it down to key questions and corollaries. Each link below will take the reader to an analysis of each question before returning here to proceed. Who started the war? Why did the United States choose war? Why not negotiate peace? Why did the Confederate States fight the war? Why secede? Was the Secession an act to perpetuate slavery? What was Jefferson Davis' rationale? What did other secessionists think?
| ||
|
Why was there war? First, let's establish that the USA did, in fact, start the war. Ownership and control of federal properties within the sovereign territory of the seceding states immediately placed the two governments on a collision course. Forts near Charleston, SC (Sumter and others) and Pensacola, FL (Pickens and others) were held by federal troops against state authority and Confederate authority after each state declared independence and were immediately a point of contention. Had the U.S. government shown some good faith toward eventually surrendering the forts now outside the United States---with just compensation due, of course----the states in question would undoubtedly have given reasonable concessions for the orderly evacuations and reasonable payments. It's clear from the record that Lincoln never had any intention of allowing the Southern states to peacefully secede. In his 1861 Inaugural address, Lincoln said, "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts ; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere..." The question of WHY Lincoln would not allow peaceful secession will be covered in the next section. If Lincoln could not peacefully persuade the Confederate states to return to the Union voluntarily, then he intended to use force, at a minimum to hold federal property and to collect duties and imposts . It's also clear that the Confederate States declared independence precisely to avoid paying U.S. duties they deemed unfair and about which there had been constant conflict for the past thirty-five years. The Tariff Acts of 1824, 1828, and 1832 were the subject of heated debates and almost brought war in 1833. More on this later. So even though Lincoln seems to suggest in the quote above that he would not mount an invasion or use force, his lawyerly caveats clearly state he will. Lincoln knew that it was highly unlikely that the South would reverse course by March of 1861 and revoke their declaration of independence. He therefore knew they would not voluntarily pay any U.S. duties or imposts and would not allow a U.S. military presence on their sovereign territory. Furthermore, it's clear from the record that Lincoln wanted to avoid appearing to be aggressor for political and public relations purposes, both within the U.S. and abroad. Lincoln knew that it was highly likely, almost certain in fact, that South Carolina and the Confederate government would not allow Fort Sumter to be resupplied or reinforced. Indeed, sending the Sumter resupply mission of warships and troops was for the purpose of inducing the South to fire the first shot as an excuse to start the war. For a detailed analysis and timeline of events, see the Tulane site on Fort Sumter . The "first shot" was actually fired in January 1860, when General Winfield Scott convinced President Buchanan that he must send troops and supplies to Sumter. The "Star of the West" was loaded with ammunition, food and 200 men (kept below decks) and sent to secretly resupply Sumter. Shore batteries fired on The Star of the West and she fled back to New York harbor without delivering supplies. No military reaction followed the firing on a U.S. flag ship. Buchanan was determined to avoid bloodshed in his administration. U.S. Major Robert Anderson had already seized Fort Sumter in defiance of President Buchanan's orders--an act of war--because he knew he could not defend Fort Moultrie in Charleston. Buchanan ordered Anderson to make no move that could be construed as aggressive. South Carolina Governor Francis Pickens, in retaliation (another act of war), seized the other federal forts in Charleston. The day after Lincoln's inauguration, he received a letter from the commander at Fort Sumter, Major Robert Anderson, that supplies were limited and that he could hold the fort for only about six weeks. Lincoln consulted General Winfield Scott and other Army officers who concurred that the fort must be evacuated because there was no practical way to successfully reinforce Sumter. Lincoln had been resolved to abandon Sumter after consultation with his Cabinet. However, various U.S. Naval officers presented a plan to reinforce Sumter and expressed confidence it could be accomplished. All during the month of March, the pressure escalated as Governor Pickens demanded immediate evacuation and surrender of Fort Sumter. Confederate President Jefferson Davis placed General Beauregard in command of the forces surrounding Charleston and ordered him to deny U.S. troops the courtesy of coming into Charleston to purchase food and supplies. Pressure escalated despite the fact that U.S. Secretary of State Seward had given South Carolina authorities the impression that evacuation was imminent. Davis ordered General Beauregard to resist the resupply or reinforcement of Sumter "at any hazard." Lincoln and his administration refused to meet with Confederate commissioners sent to Washington to negotiate a peaceful evacuation of Sumter. U.S. Secretary of State Seward, with the permission of Lincoln, advised Governor Pickens that a convoy of U.S. warships had been dispatched to "provision" Sumter, not to reinforce it, but that any resistance to the provisioning would be met with force. Faced with the knowledge that U.S. warships were inbound with the intent to resupply the fort, Confederate batteries bombarded Sumter into submission before the ships could arrive. The U.S. Navy officer who convinced Lincoln that he could resupply and reinforce Fort Sumter was Captain Gustavus V. Fox. The following excerpt is from a letter from Abraham Lincoln dated May 1, 1861, to Captain Fox which shows that Lincoln's intent was to hold the fort if possible AND, in any case, induce the South to fire the first shot . The letter is three paragraphs, the first two expressing confidence in Captain Fox's abilities and efforts to accomplish the Sumter mission. The last paragraph is as follows: You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it failed ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. Very truly your friend, A. Lincoln So the question of Why did the USA start the war? boils down to...Why didn't the USA allow the Confederate States to leave in peace? What was the thinking of President Lincoln and the other Unionists? The answer is discussed in the next section. Why was there war? Who started the war? Why did the United States choose war? Why not negotiate peace? Why did the Confederate States fight the war? Why secede? Was the Secession an act to perpetuate slavery? What was Jefferson Davis' rationale? What did other secessionists think?
| ||
|
Why war? Simply stated, a powerful and independent nation to the south would be an economic threat to the United States and therefore, eventually a potential military threat. Taxes on the exports of the South and West were the primary source of revenues to the federal treasury (estimates vary 70-80  . Shipping and transportation revenues for Southern imports/exports were essential to the economies of the New England states. Goods manufactured in Northern industrial states were sold in the South and West because import duties (protective tariffs) on competing English and European goods were so high as to make the American goods less costly to the Southern consumer. With Southern states controlling their own ports and their own duties, competing goods could be imported from abroad at lower cost, inducing the expanding railroads and other major buyers to import steel rail and other manufactured goods through Southern ports at the exclusion of U.S. ports. Unless, the U.S. government lowered its duties and tariffs---surrendering revenues----to remain competitive, Northern ports would lose traffic and profits and Northern manufacturers would have to compete price-wise or shut down (American textile manufacturing was far less efficient than the English textile mills). Northern newspaper editors described this double-edged sword: The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester [England] can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage...If the importations of the counrty are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the lost of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many huindred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers...Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free. The process is perfectly simple... The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North...We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question---one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.....We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched. ---New York Times March 30, 1861 The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing....It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No---we MUST NOT "let the South go." ----Union Democrat , Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861 From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?" That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad....If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.....Allow rail road iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railroads would be supplied from the southern ports. ---New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 , recorded in Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965, pp. 598-599. In other words....the Northern sentiment was: To Hell with Constitutional issues! To Hell with Right or Wrong! Let's bend the South to our will because they are threatening the money in our pockets! In other words, the South was destroyed and more than 600,000 Americans lost their lives and another million were maimed for selfish, economic reasons! Had these enterprising Yankees of the 1860s been around in the 1980s, the United States would have placed a 40%-50% import tariff on Japanese cars and if that didn't work they would have bombed Japanese auto factories. We can't have those pesky Japanese importing better quality cars than we make! The reader may think this a little absurd, but rest assured that people in Detroit were thinking it in 1980 and that Congressmen from Michigan and the UAW union were lobbying Congress for higher tariffs. The almighty dollar was at the root of the war. There are many surfaces, many angles and many facets to this rock, some of which we'll review, but money was the key. Follow the money! Just as the American Revolution started primarily as a tax revolt, so did the War for Southern Independence. Of course, there were other grievances besides tax policy, but the money was always the keystone issue. Tax revolts were a threat to American federal government from the beginning. The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 was put down (at least in part) when President George Washington personally lead 13,000 troops into the western Pennsylvania frontier. Was this excessive show of force against a "minor" revolt to make a point? YES. The government would use its power to enforce tax laws. Or perhaps the rebellion was more widespread? Rebellion and secession in the South were legitimate fears had the enforcement been pressed in the South, therefore Treasury Secretary Hamilton didn't recommend action there. The federal government (by design!) simply didn't have the power to fully enforce unpopular tax policy at that time . Tax policy would continue to be a potential incendiary of revolt in the coming decades. Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master. --George Washington As predicted by the Anti-federalists (see Section 1 ), the power of the federal government did grow beyond its Constitutional charter. It grew in power sufficient to make tax revolt much more dangerous. But, why didn't Lincoln choose peaceful alternatives? This issue will be addressed in the next section. Why was there war? Who started the war? Why did the United States choose war? Why not negotiate peace? Why did the Confederate States fight the war? Why secede? Was the Secession an act to perpetuate slavery? What was Jefferson Davis' rationale? What did other secessionists think?
| ||
|
Why not negotiate peace? As demonstrated in the previous section, emotions were running high by March 1861. Southern states were declaring independence but rather than addressing their concerns, Lincoln was talking about protecting Government property and enforcing the collection of duties and imposts. The country was a powder keg waiting for a match. A little good faith negotiation would have gone a long way toward dampening the environment of war. Francis W. Springer, in his book WAR For What?, views the question this way: "Conditions in the 1860's were screaming for negotiation, concession, compromise, but during his campaign for election, Lincoln made no effort to win over the South. He knew he would get few votes there and didn't want to risk losing any in the North by appearing too weak, perhaps. It can therefore be said that it was not war that Lincoln was planning, but how to accomplish the objectives of the Northern economic interests. However, it was obvious that Southerners would fight for their rights as any self-respecting people would, and that the program of the industrial clique could not be carried out except by coercion." "This was a moment for statesmanship. The big question in everybody's mind was, 'Will Lincoln negotiate or resort to coercion?'....It is unrealistic to believe that Lincoln, skilled politician that he was, would have found it impossible to use his talents for peace. One simple device might have been a prompt post-election speech offering to discuss proposals from the South. This might have brought down to half speed the rush toward secession, and a formula for peaceful co-existence might have been worked out. But Lincoln made no move. He never tried for peace. Why? There seems but one answer: he knew that there was no peaceful way the ambitious industrial clique could carry out its program for subjugation of the South." "If the North could have achieved complete domination of the country without war, there would have been no war. If the South would have been willing to submit peacefully to being outvoted of every issue, burdened with excessive taxes through exhorbitant tariffs, and ruined financially by disruption of the economic and social system, everything would have been just fine----for the North." Many Southerners were opposed to secession, not on Constitutional grounds, but because they were not convinced it was the best way to protect the South's interests. But they were 100% united on the core issues. Lincoln had to know that they would not submit peacefully to total domination...he had to know that it would not be a quick skirmish. He was facing war with one fourth of the American population and one third of the states. In the face of such a catastrophic and destructive war, what moral man would not explore ALL possibilities for honorable peace? In the end, it appears that political interests, that is, the economic interests of the Northern industrialists who were Lincoln's power base, were more important than avoiding avoidable human suffering. The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions. --Robert Lynd Why did the Southern states declare independence? This issue will be addressed in the next section. Why was there war? Who started the war? Why did Lincoln and the Unionists choose war? Why not negotiate for peace? Why did the Confederate States fight the war? Why secede? Was the Confederate's primary motivation the perpetuation of slavery? What was Jefferson Davis' rationale? What did other secessionists think?
| ||
|
Why was there war? The answer to the question, Why did the Confederate States fight the war?" is glaringly obvious: Self-defense. They fought to repel an armed invasion. There would have been no war had the Confederate States not declared independence, so the real question to address is "Why did the Confederate States declare independence (secede from the Union)?" There were certainly other factors which contributed to the climate of distrust and war, among them the issue of slavery and the slavery status of the new western states and territories. But as discussed in the previous section, the Northern states intended to hold the southern states for economic reasons. The South wanted independence for economic reasons. Follow the money! Simply put, it was a tax revolt. In the early years of the American Republic, the federal government lacked the power to fully enforce its revenue laws. That was rapidly changing in the early to mid-19th century. South Carolina defied the United States in 1832 in protest of the Tariff of Abominations(182  . Senator John C. Calhoun argued that the vast majority of federal revenues were paid by the South, yet the vast majority of the expenditures were for the benefit of Northern industry---driven, of course, by the Northern majority in Congress. South Carolina nullified the tariff in 1832 , that is, declared the tax unconstitutional and therefore void in South Carolina. President Andrew Jackson threatened to use force to collect the tax. Only the Great Compromise of 1833 averted war.The Democrats gradually reduced the unfair tariffs through the 1840s and 1850s, but opposing forces were brewing. The Democratic Party split in 1860 (Douglas and Brickinridge) and a new Constitutional Union Party emerged. The result was that Lincoln won with only 40% of the popular vote. Even without the split, Lincoln would have won in the Electoral College due to the advantage of the populous North. The North finally had a completely sectional (Northern) party in control. Radical abolitionists from the North had no doubt electified the climate for war with their hateful rhetoric and constant impugning of the character of slave-owners and southerners in general. There were abolitionists in the South, too, but they fell silent once John Brown and other Northern-sponsored terrorists began their campaigns of violence and their attempts to incite violence in the South. Abolition was merely an irritant and not a real incitement to war. Republicans used the abolitionists as "useful idiots" to incite Northern distrust and anger towards the South, but abolition was not the driving concern for those controlling the northern Republican party. Political dominance and economic exploitation via tax policy was their goal. Now that the Northern Republicans held the power, they were determined to keep it Was the Confederate's primary motivation perpetuating slavery? These issues will be addressed in more detail in the next section. Why was there war? Who started the war? Why did the United States choose war? Why not negotiate peace? Why did the Confederate States fight the war? Why secede? Was the Secession an act to perpetuate slavery? What was Jefferson Davis' rationale? What did other secessionists think?
| ||
|
Why was there war? Was it to perpetuate slavery?By 1860, though slavery was eventually doomed by virtue of Christian conscience and simple economics, it was thoroughly entrenched politically. The U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford,had ruled slavery legal and Fugutive Slave laws enforceable. Congress had passed a constitutional amendment (yet to be ratified) to protect slavery. Lincoln, though many Southerners didn't trust him, had expressly promised not to intefere with slavery "directly or indirectly, in the states where it exists." Had the Southern States remained in the Union, slavery would be protected for at least several decades to come. A three-fourths majority is required to send a Constitutional Amendment proposal to the states---a majority that could not be reached without cooperation by southern states. Accordingly, it cannot be argued that the perpetuation of slavery was the driving issue for secession. By seceding, the Southern states were forfeiting any rights and claims on the remaining territories of the west. The slave-or-free status of the western territories had long been in dispute in the United States, but the Dred Scott decision had removed any legal impediments to slave owners moving west into the new territories. By leaving the United States, the Confederate States forfeited all claims to the western territories and therefore, slavery could not be expanded unless other western territories declared independence from the United States and petitioned to join the Confederacy. Let us keep in mind that, according to census records, only six percent of the Southern people owned slaves. Of those, only three percent were wealthy. The other three percent were working families who owned less than ten slaves and who worked along-side their slaves to make a living. Stated another way, 94 percent of the citizens in the South did not own slaves. Not many people would voluntarily send their husbands, brothers and sons into battle against a foe who outnumbered them three to one for the sake of preserving someone else's right to hold slaves. Now let's put American slavery in perspective relative to the worldwide tragedy of slavery. We begin that in Section 6. Section 5: Causes of the war? Who started the war? Why did the United States choose war? Why not negotiate peace? Why did the Confederate States fight the war? Why secede? Was the Secession an act to perpetuate slavery? What was Jefferson Davis' rationale? What did other secessionists think?
| ||
|
Slavery Worldwide and in the New World The page will eventually present a fairly complete overview of the slave trade and why it was brought to American soil. Until then, suffice it to say that slavery is an evil practice that predates recorded history and to cast a majority share of the blame for it on Southern Americans or to equate the cause for Southern Independence with slave ownership is WRONG. Slavery still exists in Africa today. It's unconscionable that America's "civil rights" leaders expend much more effort trying to revise American history than in trying to improve the lot of black Americans and other minorities or in denouncing the plight of present-day slaves in Africa. Until I complete my research and present a cogent analysis here, please review the Sobran column below. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The recurrent fuss about Confederate flags has always struck me as silly, and never more so than now. I’ve been reading Hugh Thomas’s impressive history, The Slave Trade (published by Touchstone/Simon & Schuster). It’s one of those books that shift your whole perspective on the past. Thomas covers the Atlantic slave trade from 1440 to 1870. It was a literally filthy business from first to last. More than 11,000,000 Africans were brought to the New World, while countless others – probably about 2,000,000 – died of miserable conditions in the overcrowded ships en route. What I didn’t know is that fewer than 5 per cent – about 500,000 – of these Africans were brought to this country. Some 4,000,000 were carried to Brazil by the Portuguese, 2,500,000 to Spanish possessions, 2,000,000 to the British West Indies, and 1,600,000 to the French West Indies. All this puts something of a damper on the assumption that slavery was a sin specific or “peculiar” to the American South. The slaves had been Africans who were sold to European merchants by other Africans who had enslaved them in the first place. Several of Africa’s proudest empires were built on the sale of slaves. For centuries Africa’s chief export was human beings. When Congresswoman Maxine Waters speaks of “my African ancestors’ struggle for freedom,” she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Slavery was an African institution long before it spread to the South , and there was no abolition movement to trouble it. When Europe banned the slave trade, African economies reeled. So it’s rather comical for American blacks to sentimentalize Africa and stress that they are “African Americans” while cursing the Confederate flag as a symbol of slavery . Africa has a much better claim to be such a symbol. Slavery still exists there, in Sudan and Mauritania and probably elsewhere. As Christians, white Europeans always had a bad conscience about slavery. They wrestled with the question of whether Africans had immortal souls and natural rights. Even Southerners who justified slavery as a positive good felt that it needed justification. Pagans had no such qualms. They no more felt they needed to justify owning slaves than owning cattle. Slavery was a fact of life, and slaves could be killed, mutilated, and even eaten without compunction. In the Arab world African slaves were highly prized as eunuchs. They were used as guardians of harems and as civil servants, some of whom amassed considerable power. But many young African men died in the process because of inept or infected castration. The prevalence of eunuchs probably explains why African slavery didn’t leave the Arab world with a race problem. Given this history, it’s ironic that so many American blacks adopt Arab names to spite the white man and to achieve a supposedly independent “identity.” Thomas indirectly punctures another cherished American notion: that Abraham Lincoln “ended slavery.” Lincoln is mentioned only three times, very briefly, in the entire book. Against the huge backdrop of the slave trade, he was only a local, marginal, and rather tardy figure. By 1850 it was clear that slavery was doomed throughout the Christian world. But just as we exaggerate our role in fostering slavery, we exaggerate our role in destroying it. We Americans tend to be self-important even in our self- flagellations. The slave trade was so vast that a European might speculate in it, and profit by it, without ever seeing a single slave. Such distinguished authors as John Locke, Edward Gibbon, and Voltaire drew income from it. Voltaire was especially hypocritical. He took the self-serving view that it was less immoral for a European to buy Africans than it was for other Africans to sell them; and after denouncing the slave trade for years, he “accepted delightedly” when a merchant offered to name a slave ship after him. Thomas tells the whole story without much moralizing. He knows the facts speak for themselves, in all their horror and pathos: people stolen from their homes, robbed of their freedom and even their identities, often dying namelessly amid unspeakable squalor, with no families or friends to mourn or memorialize their passing. The ones who survived to be slaves in the New World, though unenviable, were relatively lucky. But in the end, the Christian conscience prevailed. Thank God. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End Sobran Column----- The links below will lead the reader to a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the Confederate Cause. Government as the Founders intended Secession in principle: Part I Secession in principle: Part II Secession in principle: Part III Causes of the War Slavery worldwide and in the New World Propaganda against southern heritage and symbols What does the Confederate flag represent? Conclusions
| ||
|
Propaganda Against The South There are thousands of Internet sites presenting the cause for Southern Independence as honorable and there are thousands of website claiming that the war was merely to preserve slavery. In every case that I've observed, those who assail the Confederate cause follow a formula. They will invariably invoke Nazi symbolism or just flat out equate the Confederate Cause with the Nazi cause. Invariably, they will use the words hatred, racism, or white supremacy. Invariably, there will be mention of the KKK, the mixture of modern images with historical events. Compare their sources. Review the cited sources to determine the veracity of their "facts." Observe their methods (emotion vs. logic), discipline of presentation and language. Note the shrill tone, the self-righteous indignation. I believe this comparison of websites alone will persuade the reader that something is "not right" with the "destroy the Confederate memory" movement. In the near future, this website will present an unassailable list of flagrant and subtle propaganda examples. Stay tuned... "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." --John S. Tilley,The Coming of the Glory John Griffin, historian and Southern Patriot, summarized the war and its aftermath in this way... There came a time in history for another band of brothers to stand tall against tyranny in what was mistakenly called the American Civil War. It was NOT a civil war, and its sole issue was not slavery. It was a War Between States. It was a War for Southern Independence. Economics, power, politics, greed and domination of the Northern interests over the Southern culture and heritage were the true driving forces behind this conflict. The Confederate States formed its own nation and it was INVADED by the North. The war, started by the Northern aggression was a call, as in the First War for Independence, for men to defend their rights and the Constitution. Both the Southerners rights and the US Constitution were being violated by Northern Federal interests. After four long years of struggle, suffering and sacrifice the Confederate States of America fell. You may have read many accounts of this war in your history books written by victors. Truth is listed as the first casualty of war. If you would like to learn some facts about the CSA, Southern Patriots, and other brave Southern people, I invite you to do some research and review the Southern perspective.
| ||
|
Confederate `heritage' is nothing but romantic lie By Leonard Pitts, Jr. First of all, let me wish you a happy Confederate History Month. That, in case you didn't know, is what April has been designated by the governor of Virginia. I guess next, he'll be honoring the Edsel and the L.A. Clippers. As long as he's celebrating losers, I mean. Gov. James Gilmore III would doubtless object to that characterization. He's probably also none too happy that observers have dismissed his new ``month'' as an inappropriate honor for a cause indelibly stained by slavery. Gilmore, after all, went to great lengths to avoid that very complaint. In his proclamation he explicitly acknowledges that slavery was bad -- an institution that ``degraded the human spirit.'' Yet the Confederacy that fought to defend the institution deserves a month in its honor? Further south, the NAACP is wrong to demand that the Confederate battle flag be removed from the South Carolina statehouse? It's pretzel logic. There's a lot of that going on in the South these days. Over the past generation, many latter-day Rebs have striven mightily to clean the stain of slavery from the Lost Cause. There's no racism here, they swear -- only the noble sacrifice of ancestors. The Confederacy has received a makeover for the new age, a redesign to make it nonthreatening, politically correct, just another stripe on the diversity rainbow. There's even a pithy little slogan: ``Heritage. Not hate.'' Unfortunately, every time the thing is crammed into its fine silk pants of denial, the seams split, and the raggedy underdrawers of reality show right through. Meaning that every time spin doctors claim the Confederacy has nothing to do with white supremacy, the words are invariably thrown back at them -- not by guys like me, but by their own philosophical soulmates. Like the man who walked through a recent pro-flag rally carrying a sign that advocated sending the NAACP ``back to Africa.'' Like the individual who called Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr., a white flag opponent, ``Little Black Joe.'' Like the man who threatened to put Riley ``in my gun sights'' if His Honor marched with black people against the flag. You almost feel sorry for them, for their inability to reject the romantic lie that began with an embittered soldier who fought for the wrong side. ``Heritage not hate?'' Who do these people think they're fooling? Not me, I can promise you that. More important, they're not fooling people like J.D. He -- or she -- is the author of an e-mail I received a few weeks back. ``I am . . . a white racist, a white supremacist and I do not deny it,'' wrote J.D. cheerfully. That was just the beginning. It seems J.D. had read my recent column documenting in the words of its own leaders the fact that the Confederacy was built on hate. ``I was most pleased to see you write what we both know to be the truth,'' said J.D. ``I never cease to be amazed at the Sons of Confederate Veterans and similar `heritage not hate' groups who are constantly whining that the Confederacy was not a white, racist government. . .'' It's an argument, said J.D., that plays well with ``white people who want to be Confederates without any controversy.'' Granted, J.D. is a lamentable excuse for a human being. But the analysis is astute. So here's my question: If the apostles of the new Confederacy aren't fooling me and they aren't fooling J.D., who the heck are they fooling? It's obvious, isn't it? Only themselves. You almost feel sorry for them, for their inability to reject the romantic lie that began with an embittered soldier who fought for the wrong side. The lie that was passed across the generations, that came to them as naturally as air and mother's milk until they lost the ability to question it. The lie that said there was righteousness in this cause. There was not. But for the children of the old soldier, for people who've invested themselves so deeply in dream castles of legacy and lineage, that fact has proven nearly impossible to face. So they spin like a White House press secretary instead. Heritage, not hate, they cry. Heritage, not hate. And yeah, there's something about it that's . . . pitiable. You wonder, when will they confront the obvious? When will they see what everyone else already knows? The heritage is hate. Editors: My letter's in response to Leonard Pitts' April 13 column, "Confederate 'heritage' is nothing but romantic lie." It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding on Pitts' part of the War Between the States and its causes. Apparently, Pitts prefers his own "romantic lie"... that the Federals fought to abolish slavery when the truth is that the fight was to preserve the union and northern economic prosperity. To cast hatred and racial bigotry as "a southern thing" is very myopic and downright wrong. The sarcastic shot about "losers" was unnecessary; we all agree that the Confederacy lost the war but a significant point Pitts misses is that we ALL lost in terms of rights forfeited (the states and the people) to the federal government. Cause of the war The most significant fact Pitts overlooks is that the Confederate states seceded because of unfair taxation and unequal representation in the US Congress. Slavery was unquestionably a hot issue and on the minds of many with the election of Abraham Lincoln. Even some of the documents of the Confederacy confirm that racial supremacy---the invalid justification for slavery---was a part of their thinking. But that invalid assertion does not invalidate the founding principles of states' preeminent rights and limited government and the right of people to seek independence from oppressive governments. But primarily it comes down to MONEY. The southern wealthy didn't want the source of their wealth, farming and slavery, tampered with. Nor did they like paying excessive tariffs on manufactured goods that favored the North and which resulted in trade retaliation in Britain in Europe against its agricultural products. Conversely, the North didn't want to give up its revenue source---the Southern states. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North...We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question---one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.....We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched. ---New York Times March 30, 1861 The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing....It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No---we MUST NOT "let the South go." ----Union Democrat, Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861 For the north, it was about MONEY and continuing to collect tarrifs from Southern farmers and forcing them to use Northern shipping and Northern manufactured goods. Most everyone (JD and his ilk are the exception) agrees that slavery was and is morally wrong. But the nation's founders believed that self-government and limited government and fair taxation were worth fighting for. So did the southern patriots who fought for independence from the US. They saw secession as noble as the colony's Declaration of Independence from Britain. Remember the Boston Tea Party? That's the point most often overlooked and that's the heritage many want preserved. Preserving the union (and tariff revenues) was the paramount federal objective It's well documented that Abraham Lincoln's paramount intent was to preserve the union. A second powerful nation to the south was an economic threat to the US that couldn't be tolerated. It's documented that Lincoln was willing to compromise on slavery to preserve the union. Other leaders fought for issues other than slavery. U.S. Grant wrote "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side." Grant didn't free his slaves until the 13th Amendment was ratified well after the war. Racial Supremacy & Vilifying of the South Racial supremacy is slowly dying (at least in terms of percentages) but 140 years ago it was the prevailing attitude across America, not just in the south. To portray this attitude as exclusively "a southern thing" is wrong. Race riots were common in the north, too, as were draft riots---many northerners didn't want to enter the fight ---not even to free slaves--- which was the Union's fraudulent recruiting angle. Northern victors were very quick to seize on the slavery issue following the war and behave as if it were their original paramount objective. Wrong! Again, THE paramount issue was to preserve the union for economic reasons--pure and simple. The vast majority of abolitionist societies began in the South. The southern voices for abolition became more silent as radical abolitionists in the North advocated violence, terrorism----any means---to end slavery. Remember John Brown and Harper's Ferry? The war took a heavy toll and the victors wanted to PUNISH the conquered south to assuage their own guilt and disguise their own motives. The occupation, carpetbaggers and economic exploitation (popularly known as "reconstruction") was covered by a ruthless propaganda campaign to justify their unethical, bloody deeds. American history is littered with similar examples of dirty deeds justified by questionably evoking God, manifest destiny, abolition, etc. They successfully VILIFIED the south, its CAUSE and its veterans. Biased history books and Pitts' ignorance reveal that success. "That erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else." --H L. Mencken Pitts prefers his own "romantic lie" Given the above points, Pitts' assertion that the Confederacy "fought to preserve the institution" of slavery is misleading if not downright false. The romantic lie he's foisting on us, by regurgitating false history, is that "noble northerners fought to abolish slavery, and therefore, everyone on the other side of the struggle was evil." The truth is, the unionists fought to preserve the union and their economic prosperity or simply because they were drafted. You'll note that black soldiers in the Union army were just as segregated as those in the Confederate army---northern soldiers held the same racist attitudes. Yes, black units are well documented in the Confederate army. Without secession and the consequent war, slavery would have continued With respect to new states being admitted to the union, slave states definitely wanted more slave states in order to maintain the balance of power within the Congress. That's the only variable that would have ended slavery any earlier than 20-30 years from 1860. The fact is, if the Confederate states had not seceded, there would have been no war and slavery would have continued for decades because the abolitionists could not muster the 2/3 majority required to initiate a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court had already ruled slavery was legal, an amendment was required to change that. Again, the secession was to avoid unfair taxes where the proceeds benefited the northern states disproportionately. In the end, the Christian conscience, education and enlightenment would have ended slavery in America---it was inevitable by 1850. Britain and Europe had banned slavery in their holdings. Slavery was abolished in Brazil (Portuguese) in 1888. Mischaracterizing the Confederacy & heritage preservationists Pitts was correct to say that ignorant racists continue to pop up in pro-flag rallies (such as the fellow with a "Send the NAACP back to Africa!" sign. There's a few in every crowd and the saying goes), but I'm saying that they don't represent me nor my views on southern heritage. Those people are not my "philisophical soulmates" as Pitts asserts. Accordingly, they may place doubts in the mind of Mr. Pitts, but their actions don't, in fact, say anything about me. Mr. Pitts is projecting motivations and intentions on me that aren't fair---in fact, one might say that he's stereotyping southerners and showing his prejudice. It was Abraham Lincoln who openly advocated the "colonization" (i.e., deportation) of blacks back to Africa or to central or South America. Were it not for his untimely death, Lincoln may have succeeded in mass deportation of blacks. Yes, the Confederate government was white, and yes, many or most of them were "racists" by modern standards. Again, that was the prevailing view across America, not just the south. Many of this country's founders thought in similar ways with regard to blacks, native Americans and other non-whites---but their views on race don't annul their founding principles of "liberty for all." We now take this idea literally, that is, ALL people have a right to liberty. It's not fair to judge 18th and 19th century people by our standards just as it wouldn't be fair to judge Pitts by the accepted standard for writers or people in the 23rd century. As Tim Russert (host to NBC's Meet the Press) recently said, "In America, we eventually do the right thing." Heritage Yes, Hate No Pitts' misunderstanding of the Confederate cause for independence notwithstanding, there is another element with respect to Confederate flags. Segregation was also based on the concept of racial supremacy and various white supremacy groups, hate groups and the KKK committed terrorism and intimidation to enforce it. These groups in their latter-day form have misused the flag and caused the Confederate battle flag (St. Andrew's Cross) to be indelibly linked with racism and segregation. In the minds of some, the symbol is forever stained by the actions of a small minority of racists. Sure, whites of good conscience should have stood up to them to prevent the staining of their symbol and, more importantly, the wrongs the racists committed. A wrong committed in retaliation for another wrong (reconstruction) is still wrong. For the above reasons, I have suggested that Georgia should revert to its previous state flag (1878-1956) in the name of racial harmony. We do need a Confederate Heritage month and we should honor Confederate war veterans. Education is the only answer to widespread ignorance about the Confederate cause for independence such as that illustrated by Pitts' column. Please refer to my own column (published April 12, 2000 in The Macon Telegraph [Macon, GA]) which is available on my web site. The URL is Georgia State Flag column Sincerely, Steve Scroggins Macon, Georgia ----------------------End Letter---------------- The following editorial by Ron Woodgeard ran April 16, 2000 in The Macon Telegraph http://bigchurch.com A 'romantic lie' it was not By Ron Woodgeard - The Macon Telegraph 4/16/2000 Consider this old saying: "It's better to remain silent, allowing everyone to think you are ignorant, than it is to open your mouth and convince them it's true." This came to mind after reading a couple of news items last week about Confederate History Month and the controversy here and in South Carolina over the battle flag. But before I continue, a little background: I was born in Ohio on the 4th of July. That's about as Yankee as one can get. At least one of my ancestors fought in the Civil War for the federal government. I enjoy reading about military history, but I'm no expert on the Civil War. The life lessons I draw from those who fought this war come from both sides. So I am not a Southerner by birth. I chose to become one after my father moved my family to Georgia when I was 10. My earliest memory associated with the difference between Southerners and the less fortunate came when my grammar school traveled by train to Washington D.C. and New York. We all wore the same outfit: Pale yellow dress shirts, matching belts and machine-gray pants. I bought my first Confederate cap, called a kepi, from a New York street vendor on that trip. I lost it to the wind off the Staten Island ferry while passing the Statue of Liberty. Having established myself an improbable flag bearer for Southern heritage, I must say I have heard just about a-damn-nuff from the morons who contend it is a "romantic lie." There are 575 graves in Rose Hill Cemetery which say it was not. There are another 197 graves in Riverside Cemetery in mute testimony to the courage, valor and sacrifice made by these men so many years ago. April is Confederate History Month across the Southeast, not just in Virginia whose unhappy governor made news when he announced it. Gov. Roy Barnes recently signed a Georgia proclamation. Confederate Memorial Day is April 26. Confederate History Month doesn't get as much attention as, say, the recent celebration of Black History Month. I'm going to assume that anyone smart enough to read this understands why. Those people who want to equate the Civil War with the Holocaust may be politically correct. But there's a difference between being correct and being right. Georgia joined the Confederacy in January, 1861 after a vote of 166 to 130 by the General Assembly. More than 90,000 Georgians fought for the South. Thirty major battles took place on Georgia soil. Nineteen state and federal sites and museums commemorate the war. Strange people are wrapping themselves in the Confederate flag these days. For example, a black state senator from Augusta used the flag just last week to generate a little publicity for himself. This fellow, Sen. Charles Walker, is in charge of all the Democrats in the Senate as their majority leader. He sets the agenda for them. They dance to his tune, so to speak. Last Monday, Walker got a letter of Southern protest from a man named Ricky Peebles from Lyons. Peebles signed his name and gave his full mailing address. The handwritten, two-page letter is not the work of a genius, to put it charitably. It contains what Walker regarded as threats, but that's open to interpretation. "I will not let you trample on the graves of our Confederate dead. I will fight you any way I have to," Peeples declares. How will he do that? Perhaps this is a clue: "You were voted into office and you can be voted out." Walker, frightened and in a state of shock, called the Senate Information Office and had the employees there write up a press release. At the end of it, it says "In light of the terroristic threats, Senator Walker is considering enlisting the Federal Bureau of Investigations (sic) in this matter." I am not worried we will see a repeat of Ruby Ridge. In fact, Peebles denied threatening any harm. "If I meant any physical threat, do you think I'd put my name on it?" (The Latin word sic in brackets is used to show that a quote is literally given even though it contains an error. Walker's press release, quoting Peebles' letter, contains four or five or these.) Of course nothing prevents Walker from milking this sad situation for all it's worth. The release is an almost comical effort to keep the Georgia flag issue heated up while the attention is elsewhere. Peebles does not represent the defenders of Southern heritage, I'm sure. As for Walker, I have some thoughts, but I'm not sure what he represents - except maybe himself. http://bigchurch.com --------------End Woodgeard column---------------- Author's note: See my February 1997 column on Confederate flags. See my April 12, 2000 column on the Georgia State flag. I have since changed my mind on compromise. I'm convinced there can be no compromise with the NAACP and others who demand nothing less than absolute cultural and ethnic cleansing of all things Confederate. --Steve Scroggins July 2001
| ||
12/9/2008 5:52 pm |
You know what, I was raised to not look back but forward into the future because there is nothing earned by rehashing or retracing negative roots. We loved our ancestor's of course but thought of them as people, loved ones, family, blood line - we didn't classify or categorize them in the "slave" part of the family or the "non slave" part of the family. We were just family. Everyone has hardships and everyone makes the best of the times they are living in. I am so tired of letting the past of over hundreds of years ago darken, dampen or drag down any of my family's future because that is not how we were raised. I am so tired of hearing other's blame the course of their future because of anything that happened in their past. We weren't raised in the shadows of our ancesters and I thank God we weren't. We are just people and we live with our eyes wide open and faced forward to the brightest future ever. So honestly, I didn't read through your whole post but I couldn't leave here without speaking my peace. God Bless You Brother. I am new here and just started reading the blogs when I came across yours. JessicaLynne
| ||
|
Thank You Jessica. Much of what happened has fell into the hands of "revisionists" and little truth is told today. Thomas Sowell is a hero of mine. Very intelligent and outspoken in a way not always popular.
|
×
×