Guest Post by Paul Craig Roberts
When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article ( http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/21/lincoln-myth-ideological-cornerstone-america-empire/ ) the question that lept to mind was, “How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasn’t fighting against slavery?”
Two days before Lincoln’s inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.
Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery.
The real issue between North and South could not be reconciled on the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have documented. The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.
Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln’s naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.
Today the ignorant morons, thoroughly brainwashed by Identity Politics, are demanding removal of memorials to Robert E. Lee, an alleged racist toward whom they express violent hatred. This presents a massive paradox. Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies. How can it be that a “Southern racist” was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?
Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861, two days after Lincoln called up troops for the invasion of the South.
Surely there must be some hook somewhere that the dishonest court historians can use on which to hang an explanation that the war was about slavery. It is not an easy task. Only a small minority of southerners owned slaves. Slaves were brought to the New World by Europeans as a labor force long prior to the existence of the US and the Southern states in order that the abundant land could be exploited. For the South slavery was an inherited institution that pre-dated the South. Diaries and letters of soldiers fighting for the Confederacy and those fighting for the Union provide no evidence that the soldiers were fighting for or against slavery. Princeton historian, Pulitzer Prize winner, Lincoln Prize winner, president of the American Historical Association, and member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica, James M. McPherson, in his book based on the correspondence of one thousand soldiers from both sides, What They Fought For, 1861-1865, reports that they fought for two different understandings of the Constitution.
As for the Emancipation Proclamation, on the Union side, military officers were concerned that the Union troops would desert if the Emancipation Proclamation gave them the impression that they were being killed and maimed for the sake of blacks. That is why Lincoln stressed that the proclamation was a “war measure” to provoke an internal slave rebellion that would draw Southern troops off the front lines.
If we look carefully we can find a phony hook in the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession (December 20, 1860) as long as we ignore the reasoning of the document. Lincoln’s election caused South Carolina to secede. During his campaign for president Lincoln used rhetoric aimed at the abolitionist vote. (Abolitionists did want slavery abolished for moral reasons, though it is sometimes hard to see their morality through their hate, but they never controlled the government.)
South Carolina saw in Lincoln’s election rhetoric intent to violate the US Constitution, which was a voluntary agreement, and which recognized each state as a free and independent state. After providing a history that supported South Carolina’s position, the document says that to remove all doubt about the sovereignty of states “an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”
South Carolina saw slavery as the issue being used by the North to violate the sovereignty of states and to further centralize power in Washington. The secession document makes the case that the North, which controlled the US government, had broken the compact on which the Union rested and, therefore, had made the Union null and void. For example, South Carolina pointed to Article 4 of the US Constitution, which reads: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” Northern states had passed laws that nullified federal laws that upheld this article of the compact. Thus, the northern states had deliberately broken the compact on which the union was formed.
The obvious implication was that every aspect of states’ rights protected by the 10th Amendment could now be violated. And as time passed they were, so South Carolina’s reading of the situation was correct.
The secession document reads as a defense of the powers of states and not as a defense of slavery. Here is the document: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/south-carolina-declaration-of-causes-of-secession/
Read it and see what you decide.
A court historian, who is determined to focus attention away from the North’s destruction of the US Constitution and the war crimes that accompanied the Constitution’s destruction, will seize on South Carolina’s use of slavery as the example of the issue the North used to subvert the Constitution. The court historian’s reasoning is that as South Carolina makes a to-do about slavery, slavery must have been the cause of the war.
As South Carolina was the first to secede, its secession document probably was the model for other states. If so, this is the avenue by which court historians, that is, those who replace real history with fake history, turn the war into a war over slavery.
Once people become brainwashed, especially if it is by propaganda that serves power, they are more or less lost forever. It is extremely difficult to bring them to truth. Just look at the pain and suffering inflicted on historian David Irving for documenting the truth about the war crimes committed by the allies against the Germans. There is no doubt that he is correct, but the truth is unacceptable.
The same is the case with the War of Northern Aggression. Lies masquerading as history have been institutionalized for 150 years. An institutionalized lie is highly resistant to truth.
Education has so deteriorated in the US that many people can no longer tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse or justification. In the US denunciation of an orchestrated hate object is a safer path for a writer than explanation. Truth is the casualty.
That truth is so rare everywhere in the Western World is why the West is doomed. The United States, for example, has an entire population that is completely ignorant of its own history.
As George Orwell said, the best way to destroy a people is to destroy their history.
Apparently Even Asians Can Be White Supremacists If They Are Named Robert Lee
ESPN has pulled an Asian-American named Robert Lee (Lee is a common name among Asians, for example, Bruce Lee) from announcing the University of Virginia/Wiliam & Mary footbal game in Charlottesville this Saturday because of his name.
The Articles of Secession of the Confederate States, as well as the Confederate Constitution, make it quite clear that slavery was the issue.
Georgia:
“That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.”
South Carolina:
“A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”
Confederate Constitution:
“The Confederate States may acquire new territory….In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.”
See Also:
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Georgia
http://findingaids.loc.gov/db/search/xq/searchMferDsc04.xq?_id=loc.mss.eadmss.ms003052&_start=358&_lines=125
MarshRabbit, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem, if you read the article at all due to your obviously closed mind on the subject.
The issue was primarily about economics and State’s rights under the Constitution. Of course, slavery is a part of both those issues, but it was not the prime issue, except to the splinter group of Abolitionists. Slavery was a moral wrong that had come down thru the millennia as a norm, and thus was practiced in all States. Technological revolution would have ended it on economic grounds in a few decades though orderly dissolution and redeployment of capital.
Lincoln sought power for himself and his cronies through plunder of the South, the Constitution be damned. The South recognized his aims and sought to peacefully separate from the union, so Lincoln called up troops to force his way by subjugating them. And the bloodiest war began.
The victor got to write the “approved history” that you bought hook, line, and sinker. Sad!
I cited primary sources from the Confederate States, not the victors. And the Confederate’s own words gave no indication they intended slavery “would have ended it on economic grounds in a few decades though orderly dissolution and redeployment of capital.” Quite the opposite. Just because I don’t buy the revisionists’ argument does not mean I have a reading comprehension problem. I quite clearly comprehended the effort to justify the South’s treason and to defend the indefensible.
South’s treason? They didn’t attempt to overthrow the gov’t, they wanted to peacefully secede. Go look at a dictionary
I’ll grant you that the constitution doesn’t have any language about secession however it does say this…
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
History and LAW is written by the victors. Had the south won I’m sure we’d be discussing far differently regarding this topic. I however have my eyes open to the atrocities of Lincoln, Grant, and the northern states in general to maintain this “perfect union.” Over half a million people died that didn’t have to. No different today than it was 150 years ago.
That quote is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, but I feel the fact that the Declaration predates the Constitution, makes it’s validity more firm.
Swamp Ribbit:
Another cherry-picking arsehole.
So citing the Articles of Secession, passed by the Confederate States, is “cherry-picking”. Wow, just wow!
Four Confederate States made the effort and listed slavery as one of many reasons for their desire to secede, so yes, you cherry picking maroon. Read the Articles of Secession, all of them.
Slavery was not “the” reason, it was one of many reasons. For shits sake black slave owners were on the side of the Confederacy as well and considered themselves American and not African as they were born in America.
Not like today where some blacks consider themselves African and shit on the flag, maroons!
So exhausting these maroons that believe the north fought a war to end slavery and the south fought a war to keep slavery.
Fucking exhausting maroons.
“black slave owners were on the side of the Confederacy”, Source, please?
Not only that, black slave owners were sometimes far more brutal than white slave owners.
Black slave owners were quite prosperous back in those days because they understood the value of cheap labor and yes, supported the Confederacy, not to protect their slaves, but to protect their rights as they saw them, not as the future fucknuts may judge them.
Northern white politicians back then did pass new laws to keep the black man down, just like modern democrats who passed minimum wage laws and prevailing wage laws, then gave him welfare, food stamps, housing, free phones, and a bad fucking attitude, all to keep the black man on the new urban plantation, where he belongs, right?
Of course they were bonehead! And many,many slaves voluntarily went to fight for the Confederacy. I am not nearly as articulate as Mr. Roberts, but for you morons that are not smart enough to comprehend what he is saying, I will attempt to clarify in a way that maybe can get through your thick skulls. For starters, like it or not, the Constitution allowed for slavery, as did the rest of the world since time began. It is dumb to view history through a modern lens. Can you get this? It is simple, it was just the way it was. No more, no less. Got it? As Mr. Roberts pointed out, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and my GGG Grandparents did not invent slavery, they inherited slavery, and to say 150 plus years later that if you had lived back then that you would never have put up with the evil practice of slavery, your are disingenuous at best and a liar more than likely. As with all people throughout the ages, people back then had to deal as best they could with the hand they had been dealt. Try to put yourself in the world of say the early 1700s. You are the wife of a Plantation owner and one day he comes home and says, Hi, guess what I did today? I bought some Africans because I need some help around here and Mr. So and So told me that they are very strong and this infernal heat down here in S.C. apparently doesn’t bother them, they seem to be immune to Malaria, and, they have quite a bit of knowledge about growing rice (I can’t remember what part of Africa they grew rice in, but a lot of the slaves in S.C. came from that region) so, I have work to do dear, so how about showing my new workers around and get them settled in and feeling at home, O.K.?” To which the dutiful wife would have said, “Yes Dear”, and gone outside to meet these people. She no doubt would have said, ” Hello, my name is…..and you are??? Her question was either answered with a great silence or in a language she didn’t understand or speak. At which point she probably said something like, “Good heavens, where are your clothes?” Thinking to herself no doubt, what on earth has that fool husband of mine gone and done now? However, being far more disciplined and much tougher than we are today, she no doubt set about dealing with the task at hand. It was a Herculean task at that. I am sure that people are going to scream and yell and rant and rave about what I next say, but it is the Truth, and the Truth is important. Those first generation Africans that were bought by Muslim slave traders, from other Africans, and then sold to Yankee ship captains waiting in the coastal ports, were quite uncivilized, to say the least. Life was short and brutal and staying alive was tricky at best. No clothes, rudimentary shelter,with prehistoric weapons that made it challenging to catch your food, along with disease and wild animals and snakebites and childbirth and the never-ending wars with other tribes almost ensured that life came to a violent and painful end, which, probably was a relief compared to the effort necessary to live. Now, one might argue that the African was perfectly fine with their lifestyle, maybe, but, judging by the grinding poverty and the horrible frequency with which one tribe or religion commits genocide upon the neighboring tribe as is the norm in Africa today, I would think that we could all agree that the African American is much better off than their cousins in the old homeland. So, could we hear a cheer for the Plantation Mistress for a change, for she was the most responsible for the civilizing of the Africans that were thrust upon her. Armed with her bible she did her best to teach them the important Christian values that were responsible for civilizing the world. She taught them basic things like useful work, sanitary practices, the rewards of having a husband, one husband, that had a duty to their wife and children, how to dress, good manners, how to nurse the sick without witchcraft, discipline, perseverance, self control, and they learned specific skills in a variety of areas, that resulted in excellence of craft that led to a sense of accomplishment and worth. but most importantly,they came to know God. If you think that the life of the Plantation mistress was laying around while being fanned with a palm frond by little slave children, then you have watched too many movies and not read enough diaries and letters written by said Mistresses. Everyday she would make the rounds of attending to the needs of her servants(they were never referred to as slaves) and of her household. There were babies being born and fevers to nurse and old servants to check on. Disputes to be settled, clothes to cut out and sewn, blankets and food dispensed, produce to can, meals to plan, children to feed and teach, supplies to be ordered and sent for, weddings to plan for both white and black, all of which was recorded neatly and religiously in a large book of accounts, and on and on and on. My GGG Grandmother wrote that she worked much, much harder when she had 300 slaves than after the War, when she had 2 servants part time. Were any of them bothered by the institution of slavery? Yes, I think to varying degrees. For instance, my GGG Grandmother wrote of the apparent contradiction with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and she struggled with it. Again, it was a different time, and it wasn’t as though she could just one day say, ” I am over this, we are going to free these slaves at once.” Number one, women didn’t call the shots back then, and even her husband could not have just turned them loose and said “Be Free”. There were laws against it, enacted to keep the less than Christian and irresponsible whites from throwing their old, sickly, or shiftless slaves out on the streets with nothing and with nowhere to go. In order to free a slave, the owner had to prove that said slave would have housing, money, or a job so that they could earn money, and many an owner did just that for a favorite slave or two, but even the richest of owners couldn’t afford to provide a home and money for all 300, 500, 0r 1000 slaves. It was the same for freeing them in their will, they had to be provided for so they would not be a burden upon society. Maybe look at the situation as a vicious cycle. Owning a big, or as did some, numerous plantations, obviously required many workers, along with the cash crop, such as rice or cotton, plantations also had livestock and vegetable gardens and wheat crops, ect.. in order to feed all the slaves and their children and provide food for the main house and the house in town. Without these huge plantations and the necessary workers everyone would have starved to death, and did, as they would soon find out after the Yankees “freed” them so they could starve to death in a Post War devastated South. There also were laws that prevented unjust mistreatment of slaves by their owners or agents, and it defies common sense to beat a valuable asset, who then would be unable to work. Happy, healthy workers, black or white or slave or free, are more productive. Also, amongst the upper classes it was socially unacceptable to mistreat one’s servants. Nothing could send a family down the social ladder faster than mistreated and poorly dressed servants. Were there isolated cases of a whip happy overseer, yes, but they were quickly replaced in most cases and another unknown fact is many owners learned that the best overseers were a responsible and bright slave. For the record, and to put things into perspective, in the old days whipping was not just reserved for slaves. Soldiers, Sailors, Criminals, unruly children black and white and probably more women of both races than anyone would like to admit were no stranger to the lash. Life is never and was never black and white, no pun intended. We all see now that slavery, the actual owning of one human being by another human is hypocritical and hard to rationalize, especially if you believe in the God given rights that were enumerated in the Declaration. But you have to keep in mind that it was more the norm than not world wide, and it wasn’t as though Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams stepped off of the Yankee slave ship and on to the dock in Charleston or Savanah or in every Northern City for the first 200 years. The African was a “savage” as were the Indians. who were slaveholders long before Christopher Columbus sailed in, I might add. We all feel bad for their less than ideal beginning circumstances, but would it be so horrible to focus on the bright side once in a while. It was a very lucky African that was fortunate enough to end up on a Plantation in the Southeastern United States. The poor ones that were taken to the sugar plantations in South America and the Caribbean were doomed and worked to death, in short order. Does that make slavery right, no, but it sure as shit made it bearable and gave your grandchildren or great grandchildren a chance of a better life and ultimate freedom to live in the greatest and most wealthy and civilized country in the world. (The British might take issue with that civilized part) I think that what the Southerner resents the most is being constantly and endlessly told that they were and are racists and traitors. Whites and blacks always have, and still do interact on a daily basis and much more easily than they ever have in the North. To think that there were not genuine feelings of affection and love and mutual respect between owner and slaves as individuals is both ridiculous and can be easily disproven by reading the histories of those that lived it. The trouble started when the Yankee carpetbaggers came in droves during Reconstruction and pitted the former slaves against their former owners, and the promises of the abolitionists and Yankee saviors of the Africans never materialized, and they were left hungry and poor and incapable of making a living. They had always been provided for, they didn’t know how to go about this freedom thing over night, and no one grieved for them more than their former caretakers. One after another they returned looking to the old master for food and shelter, but the old master had nothing either, but they still did what they could for them, which meant they all suffered together. There is story after story of devoted slaves caring for their widowed ole missus after the War. No one made them, they wanted to. Many wanted nothing to do with freedom. Most owners were glad to be done with it. They did the best they could do to live in the world to which they were born, all of them. Back to the was the War fought over slavery thing. Thomas Sowell probably put it best. I am paraphrasing, but basically what he said is that it is hard to come to that conclusion when considering the fact that 95% of the men that wore the grey uniform did not own even one slave. To believe that they would have fought and died so that a handful of wealthy rice and cotton planters could hang on to their slaves is ludicrous. They fought for their homes and farms and families and way of life, and they fought for the rights guaranteed to them in the Declaration and Constitution. Mainly they fought because they had to, the North refused to let them go in peace, which is all they asked. To quote Robert E. Lee, ” All that the South has ever asked or desired is that the Union founded by our forefathers should be preserved, and that the government as was originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.” One last thing might be worth mentioning, The U.S. is the only country in the world that killed 700,000 plus of it’s own people to ” end slavery” Everywhere else managed to end it gradually, with compensation paid to the owners for their property loss, and without a drop of blood being shed. Why? Because slavery was not the reason for the War. Perhaps the most telling event besides the fact that 95% of the southern population didn’t own a slave, was that Jefferson Davis was never prosecuted. Chief Justice Chase and a panel of the most esteemed lawyers in the North unanimously agreed that, to quote Justice Chase, ” If Jefferson Davis be brought to trial it will convict the North and exonerate the South.” I am an intellectual light weight compared to all the writers on TBP, but I just had to add my two cents coming from a different perspective, that of the poor demonized Mistress of the Plantation that did what she had to do to the best of her ability as a good Christian woman, and I would say she did well, for there are so many good, decent, kind and loving and successful practicing Christians today in the African American community that are direct descendants of and a product of, those first Africans that survived the dreadful ocean crossing and then had the fortitude and courage to make the best of the cards they had been dealt, and forgave and adapted and learned and thrived and earned the respect and love of ALL who knew them, black and white, but above all, were grateful that they were given the chance to meet their Savior, Jesus Christ the Lord. Amen. P.S. If you people want to point your finger and hate and rage at those really responsible for the millions of enslaved Africans world wide, as well as here, get to hollering at the Muslims and your fellow Africans, not your fellow Americans.
MarshRabbit says:
August 24, 2017 at 7:34 am
The Articles of Secession of the Confederate States, as well as the Confederate Constitution, make it quite clear that slavery was the issue.
—————————
Constitution of the Confederate States of America
March 11,1861
Section 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
Northerners were going to lose a lucrative market.
Lincoln lied the way most men take off their socks, without much thought and daily.
I could C&P pages of the most inflammatory remarks from Lincoln regarding race and just as many extolling the opposite. In his center there was no core, only a thirst for power above all else. How he has risen in estimation is beyond comprehension to anyone who has done so much as an hours research of his own words.
Edit to add: I believe that he is a screen onto which people project those opinions they themselves hold, a kind of 19th century Zelig. He is what people wish him to be, but in reality he was an historical cipher, an empty vessel that could contain whatever history demanded of the time.
+100 farmer–
the orwell quote above about destroying people by destroying history is so true–
btw,do you have any of those famous new england stone walls on your property?
if so,they need to be pulled down and Burned b4 syrup season or the enlightened people of tbp will boycott you–
See?
Like this, I wish I could express myself like this……..a gift. I’d C&P you in my little fights on FB over this issue but people would know it’s not me.
General Don Platt, who traveled with Lincoln while he was campaigning and knew him intimately said,” Abraham Lincoln has almost disappeared from human knowledge. I hear of him, I read of him in eulogies and biographies, but I fail to recognize the man I knew in life.”
Keep the stone walls if you desire. I will purchase your syrup regardless.
DaUnenlightened DaBirds
Marsh Rabbit is typical of those who cling for dear life to a few floating scraps of debris so that they do not have to admit that their ship has vanished beneath the waves. He apparently can´t understand the clear, logical, documented article by PCR and falls back on irrelevant historical footnotes. Of course the Southern states and the Confederate constitution supported the institution of slavery! It had been established in the American colonies of all European countries in the entire Western Hemisphere since the 16th century, for Christ´s sake. New Englanders had been the major importers of slaves to the United States. Northern textile mill owners grew rich off of slave-grown cotton. The U.S. government was largely financed off the tariffs and taxes on that same crop. It was a major part of the Southern economy and, having seen the results of “black liberation” in Haiti, no sane Southerner (or Northerner, for that matter) had any intention of allowing a population of millions of blacks to be turned loose willy nilly on the countryside. The Northern states, with few exceptions, had made their position quite clear: No blacks, no blacks voting, no blacks in schools, no black anything. I will point to Detroit, Chicago and any of our other inner cities and ask if these people were so far off the mark.
The South had been the target of three decades of obscene, violent, insane attacks by deranged Abolitionists (the same kind of people, by the way, who are in Antifa, BLM and other such assorted crackpot groups today). Covering themselves in moral indignation, they called for immediate abolition, knowing full well that others would pay all the costs, including perhaps their lives and the lives of their children. At the suggestion that perhaps the entire country should pay for a compensated and gradual abolition, these same Abolitionists shrieked with indignation, like a one-legged man with a gout attack. Oh no! Only the South is to blame for slavery! It was one of the most nauseating displays of hypocrisy in world history.
The South seceded from the Union because it no loinger wanted to be chained to a political system that was stacked against it. The sanctimonious attacks on slavery surely planned a role in hardening the determination of the South to retain the slavery system. When people are attacked by outsiders they tend to circle the wagons.
The pro-slavery elements in the documents mentioned by Marsh Rabbit are hardly surprising and do not conflict in any way with a correct interpretation of the true underlying causes of the war. Considering that we were about to plunge into national catastrophe, it would stand to reason that some mention would be made of one of the main social, economic and political differences that led to it.
As I have said many times before, there will never be a final view accepted by all Americans on the causes, conduct and effects of the Civil War. Southerners will have one view and Northerners and others (including Southern scalawags) will have another. I personally believe that the men who actually fought the war (the big mouth Abolitionists rarely served in the army and the Southern fire breathers faded away to obscurity after doing so much to bring the war on) were utterly sincere in their reasons for fighting. For the Union soldiers the Union was a sacred thing to be defended at all costs. For the Southerners, they felt they were defending their homes and families from people who – as far as they could tell – hated and despised them instead of seeing them as fellow Americans and part of a Band of Brothers. Had the soldiers sat down at a table they might have worked things out in a half hour of talk. The Union preserved, America to remain forever a white man´s country (as intended by the Founding Fathers, like it or not), slavery to die a natural death (as it surely would have – the tide of history was against the South), extremists on both sides hanged from a sour apple tree.
But this avoids the real point. In view of the looming national catastrophe in our own time, why are we fighting over a war fought 150 years ago! I love the USA and I love my home, the South. I assume Northerners feel the same way about their homes. Let´s leave it at that.
Nice.
Well said! I agree. Can’t we let all of our ancestors, North and South, Black and white, free or slave, rest in Peace and allow their descendants to honor their statues, graves, and memory without fear or shame? Enough already with the nonsense, enough blood has been spilled and destruction wrought, then and now.
Perhaps what the int’l financial [D]elites/PTB (Psychopaths That Bugger) and their
United SNAKES Corp, Sodom-on-the-Potomac, D[e]C[eit] criminal gov ops fear most is a historical re-“RIGHTING”.
History shows that Lincoln had no affinity for darkies and that U.S. Grant didn’t care much for zee Joos either..Racist damn Yankees. Grant was convinced that Jews were “an intolerable nuisance that must be purged” from his Department.
[img
[/img]
C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America
“a 2004 mockumentary directed by Kevin Willmott. It’s a fictional tongue-in-cheek account of an alternate history in which the Confederates won the American Civil War, establishing the new Confederate States of America”
‘The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism’ by Edward E. Baptist
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” –Frederic Bastiat
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” –George Santayana
Sherman definitely not SJW and even had a tank named after him. Anyway, I sense the commies will soon be coming for Longstreet who is sitting in our town square!!
Re: Black slave owners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)