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
What you apparently fail to read from your own source is that every one of those, after the initial 13 and with the exception of Texas and, to a lesser extent, California passed through the status of US territory. In the case of California, arguments between slave and free interests and the Wilmot Proviso delayed the organization of the Mexican Cession into a formal territory, and as part of the Compromise of 1850 California was admitted as a state.The other exceptions are Maine and West Virginia, which were broken off from other existing states.
The fact is that the people of a territory can't simply form themselves into a state. The people of a territory tell Congress that they want to be admitted as a state and Congress passes an Enabling Act, giving the people of that territory the authority to form a state. And that permission is not automatic. Colorado started asking for admission in 1864, but it wasn't until 1876 that they were admitted.
You are aware, aren't you, that the Emancipation Proclamation was nearly a year before the Gettysburg Address, aren't you?
Do you disagree that ending slavery was the right thing to do?
I am. I'm also aware that it was a war measure which didn't free any slaves.
Do you disagree that ending slavery was the right thing to do?
You didn't answer my question: Freedom for whom?
“Not only do you propose bending over for FedGov™”
You’re not funny, by the way.
“I am. I’m also aware that it was a war measure which didn’t free any slaves.”
It freed about 4 million slaves, silly.
You're wrong. About 20,000, in US controlled areas of North Carolina and on the Sea Islands of South Carolina were immediately affected. And of course as the war went on, millions more were freed under its terms.
You didn't answer my question: Freedom for whom?
Everyone, including slaves. What's your point?
Perpetuating historical revision.
Read the thoughts of Lincoln's contemporaries on this, including the legal aspects of it.
Everyone, including slaves. What's your point?
Follow the conversation.
“Perpetuating historical revision.”
Revision? Hop in your time machine, go back to 1865, ask them whoever’s around what “henceforward shall be free” means.
“Read the thoughts of Lincoln’s contemporaries on this, including the legal aspects of it.”
Oh, give it up. You know what happened. Eventually the Confederacy was conquered, and no matter what else happened the slaves in that territory would never have been delivered back to bondage. The 13th amendment made the point moot, but the EP nonetheless provided for freedom “henceforward,” i.e. forever.
The year 1865 is incorrect for the Emancipation Proclamation.
Do you understand that war aims can change over the course of years?
“The year 1865 is incorrect for the Emancipation Proclamation. “
No it isn’t. It’s not when it was issued, no. But 1865 would have been the year when the 4 million figure I cited earlier was reached. It was also the year of the 13th amendment’s passage, and as such the last year in which the EP was significant.
But it is the time at which the number of slaves freed under the EP peaked.
Your claim that the Emancipation Proclamation freed four million slaves is historical revision. Period.
“Your claim that the Emancipation Proclamation freed four million slaves is historical revision. Period”
If it’s revisionist, then it was a revision of a revision, because that’s the way it was, and nothing but the fog of ideology could have made it any other way.
Perhaps while we wait for Palestinian Authority to get here you could explain how you believe the Emancipation Proclamation freeing four million slaves is inaccurate or constitutes some sort or historical revisionism?
You're both behind. Even .gov recognizes at this point that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves.
Lincoln's war aims changed?
History doesn't support your contention that the Emancipation Proclamation freed four million slaves, therefore, it's revision. Unrevised history tells us is the 13th Amendment freed the slaves.
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.