Skip to comments.War Between the States about slavery? No way
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
“Well then I guess these amendments are ‘hubristic’ in your book?
1st - Congress shall make no law...
2nd - ...shall not be infringed.
4th - ...shall not be violated...”
You’re better than that. I don’t for a moment believe you don’t understand my argument, or wouldn’t if you stopped steamrolling through arguments. Declaring Congress shall make no law restricting this or that, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that the right to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures shall not be violated does not bring you into conflict with any other part of the Constitution. Declaring no amnedments can be made on a particular subject does bring you into conflict with the ability to pass amendments, as outlined in Article 5. If you can still pass amendments, you can pass an amendment to overturn the no amendments amendment.
Actually, the Bill of Rights is in logical conflict with the rest of the Constitution, which has it that the federal government can’t do what it hasn’t been empowered to do. Since Congress was never given the power to regulate speech, it doesn’t make any sense to deny them that power. Madison raised this particular objection when they were proposed. But practicality, in the form of quieting (perceptive) anti-federalists, and emotion, in the form of the Bill of Rights just feeling right, won out.
So, in a way, you’re right. They too are flawed. Not in the same way, though, and certainly not to the extent of, the Corwin amendment.
“i remember one of your buddies arguing Lincoln was not an abolitionist not long ago.”
I don’t know who that was, nor its context. Obviously, he wasn’t an abolitionist to begin with, and never was one in the John Brown sense. But what else can you call someone who issued the EP and pushed for the 13th amendment?
“i think he should’ve usurped constitutional limits, even though all my posts expose how many constitutional limits he already did usurp, yet you all cozily disregard. Can you saw ‘strawman’?”
Can you say “miss the point”? The point is that since at the same time you criticize Lincoln for usurping constitutional limits and (implicitly, if not outright) not usurping constitutional limits, you are a hypocrite.
How does a military measure change the Constitution? It can't. If the Southern states were still in the Union, as Lincoln claimed, he had no Constitutional authority to abolish slavery in any state. A State could abolish it, but not Lincoln. It takes an Amendment to change the Constitution.
“only those things you can’t or won’t counter, continue to ignore, and continue your absolute bootlickin narrative in the face of. deflect, deflect, deflect.”
Deflect? I’ve responded to Corwin amendment issues in several different posts. What would constitute not deflecting to you? Surrendering the argument and agreeing with you? Anything less is hiding my head in the sand? I suppose it must be, what with your mighty Evidence, the cornucopia of Links to the holy Websites you’ve visited, the shelves and shelves of Books you’ve read, with History in them, based on Primary Sources that you’re Researched with your open and objective mind./s
Get over yourself and your pile of lost cause talking points. You’re a regurgitator at best. At worst a regurgitator who can’t bring themselves to believe that other people have doen research, too. That books exist that you haven’t read, and legitimate arguments that you haven’t entertained. That some of what other people post is not just hearsay and deflection, but evidence as well.
Sustained argument with you guys is impossible. It always devolves to the level of stupid pictures.
Explain to me, in words if you will, why that’s funny? You mean because I used the phrase “found religion”? That’s a figure of speech. The Great Emancipator is merely a common nickname. What about the substance of the sentence? Even you must know that Lincoln eventually supported freeing all the slaves, that he passed the EP which freed some slaves, and that he pushed for the 13th amendment to be passed. How does that not constitute converting to abolitionism in the midst of his presidency?
“How does a military measure change the Constitution?”
Oh, boy. You’re not that obtuse, are you? Are you not aware that the president is the commander in chief of U.S. armed forces, and that the relationship between the citizens and the military is not the same in times of peace as when said citizens make war with the government?
Your “observations” are too full of question-begging, special pleading, spurious reasoning, and outright inaccuracies (the 6th amendment protects us against searches and seizures, really?) to adequately respond right now.
“found religion” is funny since his wife declared him a lifelong atheist at his funeral.
“converting to abolitionism” is funny since your buddy (i think Bubba) argued we was never an abolitionist.
the whole discussion is funny, because it’s based on the rule of one man’s “morality” over the law of the land, and what a precedent that sets...
Thanks for the correction - I was referring to a copy of the Bill of Rights as proposed, wherein the 4th Amendment was referred to as "Article the sixth," and the 5th Amendment was referred to as "Article the seventh." Given that I quoted the language in question, it's a minor issue (to me at least ;>)- but feel free to correct my spelling, and my grammar as well, if those things are of critical importance to you.
While you attempt to muster an 'adequate' response, please feel free to enlighten us:
Shall government be bound by law, or by morality?
A Commander In Chief can't change the US Constitution nor can a military measure. Amendments are a requisite for that type of change.
Mr. Madison observed:
If a line can be drawn between the powers granted [to the federal government] and the rights retained [by the people and their States], it would seem to be the same thing whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended."
If the two are the same thing described in different ways, as Mr. Madison suggested, where precisely is the logical conflict?
Tub: Even you must know that Lincoln eventually supported freeing all the slaves, that he passed the EP which freed some slaves, and that he pushed for the 13th amendment to be passed. How does that not constitute converting to abolitionism in the midst of his presidency?
Tub: Obviously, [Mr. Lincoln] wasnt an abolitionist to begin with, and never was one in the John Brown sense. But what else can you call someone who issued the EP and pushed for the 13th amendment?
Actually, political pragmatist might be a more apt description. I am reminded (for some reason) of President Johnsons statement a century later, claiming that if he helped pass civil rights legislation, he would have them [insert racial slur here] voting Democratic for two hundred years" ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/812203/posts#14 ).
s: How does a military measure change the Constitution?
Tub: Oh, boy. Youre not that obtuse, are you? Are you not aware that the president is the commander in chief of U.S. armed forces, and that the relationship between the citizens and the military is not the same in times of peace as when said citizens make war with the government?
Gosh and just two posts earlier (#905) you were sanctimoniously reminding us all that some of what other people post is not just hearsay and deflection, but evidence as well. (Ouch! ;>)
Hopefully youre busy preparing a detailed presentation of your evidence, regarding the inarguable constitutional foundation for martial law (presumably including the permanent confiscation of property from the civilian populace, without compensation), rather than just throwing insults around. Im sure your evidence will be quite interesting: at the top of the page (#901) you were insisting that the rest of the Constitution has it that the federal government cant do what it hasnt been empowered to do. Given that the federal government has only been empowered by the Constitution in a very limited fashion (Article I, Section 9, for example) when it comes to martial law, well be looking forward to your evidence with bated breath