War Between the States about slavery? No way

The Tampa Tribune ^ | April 25, 2011 | Al Mccray

[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

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

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.

Technically, the Emancipation didn't legally end slavery in the rebelling states. Read it. It never says that it's making slavery illegal in those states. It says that it's freeing the slaves. It's similar to a civil forfeiture in a drug case. When the government seizes a drug kingpin's house, car, boat and cash, they're not making the ownership of houses, cars, boats and cash illegal. Putting a legal end to slavery was accomplished via the 13th amendment and the Reconstruction state constitutions.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Prudence requires declaring your reasons for such as action as Jefferson did and the states each did before secession.

So what does it say that only four rebelling states actually issued a document laying out the reasons for their acts of secession?

[phi11yguy19]

It's similar to a civil forfeiture in a drug case.

For that analogy to work, you'd have to equate illegal drug trafficking with what was at the time legal slavery or legal secession. I don't see the similarity.

When the government seizes a drug kingpin's house, car, boat and cash, they're not making the ownership of houses, cars, boats and cash illegal.

Again, for that analogy to work, the E.P. would've only applied to Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee or (stretching it out a bit) to any who raised arms in the South. A more accurate analogy would be the fed seizing the houses, cars, boats and cash of everyone in Florida because there's drug trafficking somewhere in Miami. Again, I don't see the similarity.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

For that analogy to work, you'd have to equate illegal drug trafficking with what was at the time legal slavery or legal secession. I don't see the similarity.

Of course you don't. But I don't have to equate it with legal secession or legal slavery, I have to equate it with illegal rebellion. As the EP says, it is "a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion."

[phi11yguy19]

States aren't parties to "rebellions". When States exercise their right to leave a union pact, it's called "secession". Since the right of secession was reserved to the states, yes, you will have to somehow equate that with illegal drug trafficking.

The whole "rebellion" angle was Lincoln's false narrative to his willing sheeple.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Then you should probably sue Lincoln to get all the slaves returned to their owners.

[rockrr]

I'm sure they'll get right on that just as soon as they finish a little housekeeping on that Texas v. White case that sticking in their craw.

[Tublecane]

“For that analogy to work, you’d have to equate illegal drug trafficking with what was at the time legal slavery or legal secession. I don’t see the similarity”

How about rebellion, which is the literally what EP offers as justification. Is that illegal enough for you? Oh, wait, I forgot, the feds were the ones acting illegally, since they started it, despite the South shooting first. [ahem!]

[Who is John Galt?]

I'm sure they'll get right on that just as soon as they finish a little housekeeping on that Texas v. White case that sticking in their craw.

Since you raised the subject - care to defend the reasoning (including the justices' rather creative interpretation of "history") in the majority opinion in Texas v. White? We'll see how much you learned from Non-Sequitur...

(By the way, good to see you back, my friend! We were a little worried about you there, for a while, when your home page said you were 'banned or suspended'... ;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

How about rebellion, which is the literally what EP offers as justification. Is that illegal enough for you?

"Illegal?" Actually, I can't seem to locate a single clause in the antebellum Constitution that prohibited State secession (quite the opposite in fact). But feel free to quote the article, section and clause to which you are referring...

;>)

Oh, wait, I forgot, the feds were the ones acting illegally, since they started it, despite the South shooting first. [ahem!]

"Oh, boy. You’re not that obtuse, are you?" Are you not aware that who shoots first does not necessarily determine the legality of an action? Theoretically speaking, under certain circumstances, if federal law enforcement officers entered my home without proper legal authorization, I would not be at fault if I opened fire. (Not that I would ever do that - I wouldn't want to be killed instantly, even if my actions were justified posthumously by a federal court! ;>)

[phi11yguy19]

See post 945.

Rebellion (here or here) is a term used for citizens (or groups of citizens) who take up arms against their respective government. It has no applicability to the actions of political entities (republican States seceding from a federation). [ahem!]

Lincoln used the term because he needed the "legal" justification to invoke his military powers upon States...I mean "groups of citizens", of course. Thus he referred to the "rebellions within the states" of SC, FL, et al. even though there was nothing "within" about it - the States merely exercised their political right to leave the voided contract.

[driftless2]

Take a poll sometime and see how many of the people you know think they’re citizens of the state of Pennsylvania or The United States of America. I guess the people who think they’re citizens of the U.S.A. are all craven bootlickers, huh?

[phi11yguy19]

i'd hope they all say "both", but i'm sure many ignoramuses like yourself don't have a clue...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Prior to the 14th, state citizenship was primary, and U.S. citizenship was the derivative. That truth drove the 14th amendment which flipped that, making U.S. citizenship the primary and state citizenship the derivative - to prevent states from impeding black citizenship by restricting state citizenship.

Either way, the answer to your poll for the constitutionally literate should always be "all of the above." So what was your point again, genius?

[driftless2]

"derivative"

Yeah, I guess that's why all the northern volunteers signed up for the federal army after Lincoln asked for volunteers. They wanted to defend states rights, I guess.

[phi11yguy19]

"derivative"
Yeah, I guess...(some rambling nonsense)

Only those who lack information need to guess...

Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855):
By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage - arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy - has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states.

Shall we take a poll to see who's the big tool in the room?

Keep on guessing at your "history". One day you'll have a fantastic tale to tell your grandkids.

[driftless2]

Have fun on planet Nutzo.

[newguy357]

@newguy - thanks for joining the discussion and immediately bringing your level-headed opinion, (forgetting “@$$h0les” of course)

Hi phillyguy--my chief objection is not with the historical debate regarding the nature of the civil war, as interesting as it is. Rather, there is someone posting on this thread who specifically stated that he would fight for his state to secede--today--even if that state were seceding so that it could hold slaves. That is utter madness. I realize that the civil war period is incredibly complicated and that it has been grossly oversimplified far too often. But to not see the superiority of individual rights to every form of corporate rights (including "states' rights") in today's context is shameful. With the way the country is headed I am greatly encouraged when certain states (TX) talk of secession. My problem is with little adolphs running around still dreaming of some fictional glory days of states-as-sovereign-nations who would be perfectly alright putting chains around the necks of their fellow men if that meant the sovereignty of their states.

[phi11yguy19]

But to not see the superiority of individual rights to every form of corporate rights (including "states' rights") in today's context is shameful.

I'd say anyone who justifies rape, pillage and murder of 600,000+ in the name of "morality" is "shameful". No one is arguing for slavery, and your conflation of what people are saying with what you assume they're saying is the only thing "fictional" about this discussion. (Well, that and "putting chains around the necks of the fellow men" - as that was much more a visage of the northern slave capture, shipment and trade than slavery as it ever existed in the south - and telling southerners they "sold other human beings" - when that too was particularly an area of the north's expertise).

Most here are simply arguing the essential principle of federated republics echoed through our founders - that the central behemoth, the states and the people all must live under the strict rule of law, for better or worse, because the rule of man is ultimately always worse.. You don't do the discussion any justice by conflating the timeless principles of separated powers and self-determination with the institution of slavery (that was a national and global problem at that time).

If states want to secede from the union because some states want to control the others, they retain the right to do so as their union of "mutual benefit" has been voided. Let those who take the moral high ground let the world to see, while those who do not accept the moral, political and economic scorn of the world while their evils die a slow, natural death. (Hint, the principles hold, and no one dies that way.) But any perceived moral authority flies right out the window when you start an unnecessary war.

Instead, once we permitted centralization, it grew by it's nature, and sovereignty shrunk. Though you could shout from the rooftops if you lived in state X that state Y was evil, while handling things a better way, now we're just an alphabet soup and we're all under the behemoth's thumb. The same principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" you claim were violated by some states (though arguably all) with slavery, now we all violate them together tenfold with no escape hatch. Compare the 4 million slaves built up over centuries with the "convenience" slaughtering of 50 million+ infants in mere decades since Row v Wade.

There is no manumission from slavery under tyranny. I'd say be careful what you wish for, and try really hard to grasp the principles of the discussion before you burst out with emotion again.

[Who is John Galt?]

pg19: Prior to the 14th, state citizenship was primary, and U.S. citizenship was the derivative.

d2: Yeah, I guess that's why all the northern volunteers signed up for the federal army after Lincoln asked for volunteers. They wanted to defend states rights, I guess.

Actually, the vast majority of "northern volunteers signed up" for service with State units (the 2nd, 6th & 7th Wisconsin, for example, in the 'Iron Brigade'). They were, in effect, State militia units. The actual "federal army" remained relatively small throughout the hostilities.

Thanks for bringing up the point!

;>)

[driftless2]

And thank you once again for avoiding my question.