Does the South = Racism?

I heard, read a lot of Christians talk about racism lately and how the South is so un-Christlike for being racist. Well, I’m not denying it exists, but let’s not forget where it came from in this country. Before works like Uncle Tom’s Cabin and abolitionist propaganda (they were actually some of the worst racists as they only wanted to end slavery to ship ex-slaves back to Africa…Lincoln proposed to send them to Liberia) the whites and blacks of the South got along just fine. They cared about one another and worked together. Of course there were cases of cruelty and abuse, but overwhelmingly that is a false stereotype. The Northern abolitionists and reconstructionalists caused most of what we know as racism in the South. My great great great grandparents loved their black neighbors and servants and treated them like family. Only when groups like the CRM and the NAACP came along did the history get rewritten and racism was inflamed. Never apologize for being a white Southerner. While on the topic, blacks were integrated in the U.S. army during Vietnam, but were integrated in the CSA army in 1860. Hmm. In the US army of 1860, blacks could not eat, sleep or mingle with white soldiers, received less food, less pay, buried in separate cemeteries. In the CSA army, blacks fought side by side with whites, ate with them, slept with them, and got the same pay and were buried with them. Who’s the racists really? ENOUGH of this apologizing for something that was stirred up by the liberal left.

One final note: This Sunday at 3:00pm, at the Old Presbyterian Church of Pickens, SC, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Order of the Confederate Rose and Daughters of the Confederacy will be honoring a black CSA veteran AT THE REQUEST OF HIS BLACK DESCENDANTS. He was a slave, dearly loved by his white family; he went off to war with his master, refused to leave and died serving the family and was buried side by side with them. I challenge anyone who can’t believe or understand why a Black man would raise arms against Mr. Lincoln’s army and fight for the South to come and see for yourself.

The sad reality is that the NAACP won’t come. What they would witness would defy their dogma and their efforts to tear us apart.

Race in the South Since 1877

History of the South / BJU / 2010 / Final Exam / “B”

Since 1877, the South has been a region undeniably marked by racism. Though racism exists equally in the North, the focal point of the race battle has been in the South. The aim of this essay is to see how race has effected white and black Southerners since 1877 and the end of Radical Reconstruction.

Immediately after the end of Civil War Reconstruction and more specifically, the removal of Union troops from the South, Southern whites–acting on racial attitudes and fear of black bitterness–made great efforts to unofficially put blacks back under the white supremacy equal to that of institutional slavery. Before Federal soldiers returned North, blacks had experienced freedom and opportunity for social advancement in business and even politics. Blacks saw those new liberties as the fulfillment of the reconstruction promise; the dream of freedom had been realized in the eyes of former slaves. However, Southern whites saw the presence of Federal troops and black politicians as the ultimate insult and a severe threat to Southern society. While blacks rejoiced, whites were only made more bitter and vengeful. Naturally, the removal of Federal troops gave whites the chance to secure their society from blacks and place them back under white supremacy. Though legally protected from slavery, blacks had no such protection from Southern animositybrought on by the presence of Federal troops and the appointment of blacks in Southern political offices.

The Southern answer for the black problem was none other than the systematic disfranchisement of blacks. The main method was the utilization of sharecropping. To the black freedman, sharecropping was a great step up from slavery. Blacks could work their own land, own their own homes and set their own labor pace. However appealing to blacks, the whites knew it was nothing more than glorified slavery, because whites often deliberately made the contracts such as the black farmer became infinitely bound in debt and was essentially a legal-bound slave to the landlord. Sharecropping became slavery under a new name and a legal way to keep blacks from ever rising socially or economically.

Another aspect of disfranchisement was education. Uneducated people cannot rise in society; therefore Southerners made it very difficult for a black person to receive an education. Some whites truly believed blacks were inferior biologically and could never benefit from an education, but most whites knew better and feared that an educated black would prove harmful to white society. Whites believed that an educated black would use his or her power to turn against the South and rally support. Black schools were rare and poor due to the previous ban on education of blacks during slavery. Blacks wanted desperately to learn to read and write. They had been kept in darkness for generations and now wanted to prove themselves and excel in society.

Enter Jim Crow. Eventually, the South as a whole took  more drastic and comprehensive action to maintain white supremacy. The answer was racial segregation. Whites felt the only way to white dominance was to legally keep blacks separate from whites to preserve society from inferior beings polluting it. This elaborate, multidimensional plan of segregation is known as “Jim Crow.” It spanned the whole of black life; business, education, society, voting and religion–there was almost no end to its application. Blacks could live freely and progress, but only within distinct boundaries. Socially, blacks could not eat, ride or shop where whites did. Blacks had separate restaurants, transportation, restrooms, churches, schools and businesses. While many blacks such as W.E.B. Du Bois resented and condemned segregation, others such as Booker T. Washington saw racial segregation as better than previous conditions under slavery and as opportunity for black progress and social advancement. Washington was greatly liked by whites but despised by many blacks, who saw him as a traitor to his race.

It appears that it was religion which gave blacks greatest refuge from Jim Crow. Through their Negro spirituals and traditional worship methods, they coped and sought to win white sympathy by remembering and preserving their African heritage. Blacks met worshiped exclusively in black congregations. Towards the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, there would be a great blurring of the lines between black religion and politics. By the end of the movement, even to the present, black preachers and politicians would be almost synonymous.

Under Jim Crow, some extremely radical whites did resort to intimidation and violence to oppose black insubordination to the system. The most notable of course is the Ku Klux Klan–which resorted to lynching and various forms of violence to maintain white supremacy through fear. Towards the 1930′s, Southern progressives began to emerge. They believed in Jim Crow and accepted it, but desired to mend the past violence and improve race relations.

After World War Two and Americans witnessing the horrors of racism in Hitler’s Holocaust of the Jews, the nation was greatly softening and many whites saw the grizzly end racism would lead to: hatred and genocide. The Holocaust was a wake up call to whites and made them less hostile to blacks and fertilized the ground for the Civil Rights Movement.

Also causing a wave of release in the South was the Great Migration of blacks to the North. With fewer blacks in the South, whites felt more secure and less need for strict observance of the Jim Crow laws. The rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt gave blacks a new hero to hope in. F.D.R. was the new Abraham Lincoln and gave new hope to blacks and their future generations. Blacks became Democrats due to F.D.R.’s efforts to give them employment opportunities.

The Civil Rights Movement is defined as the battle for black right taken from the courtrooms to the streets. The battle for racial equality was now militant, visible and revolutionary. The key, public icon of the movement was none other than Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.. King was a terrible father, husband, minister and infamously plagiarized, but his use of Christian language rallied support from blacks and conservative whites. King’s words transcended the race barrier. The movement really kicked off during the Montgomery Bus Boycott where Rosa Parks publicly refused to give her seat to a white. Whites were often not happy with King or the movement and resorted aggression and violence. Though white fears were diminishing, radical whites still made efforts to maintain white supremacy. White politicians quickly realized the potential votes to be gotten from the black population and eventually brought about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and gave blacks eternal freedom from Jim Crow. Blacks were now legally equal to white citizens. Despite fierce resistance from several states–especially Mississippi and Alabama, under men such as governor George C. Wallace, famous for his statement: “Segregation today, tomorrow and forever!”– the government ended racial segregation and integrated blacks into white society. This infuriated many whites, not so much as the fact that blacks were now equal with them, but because the Federal government stepped in to do it. Once again, as blacks celebrated, many whites were even more outraged than ever before. Despite white outrage, the law of the land was racial equality.

Today in the South, there are indeed scars of racism. Groups such as the NAACP and the UCLA only fuel the remaining racist sentiments. The blame for racism is placed almost exclusively on the South–even identifying the Confederate battle flag as the ultimate symbol of racism. However, any educated student of History will know that the Civil War was fought for over o dozen reasons deemed more important than slavery; and to suggest to Southerners they fought and died for black slaves alone is considered an insult. Such ignorance on the part of non-Southerners, and groups as the NAACP no doubt create more problems than they solve.

Religion is the final pillar of the Civil Rights Movement, as the movement itself was abandoned in the late 60′s when it became violent. As previously noted, the lines between black politics and religion are often merged and indistinguishable. As in the day of MLK, black preachers are often synonymous with political activists. Names such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and now Jeremiah Wright are perfect examples of remaining black bitterness towards whites and the South. Sadly, they usually associate the Confederate cause with slavery and racism–an incomplete and historically ignorant assessment.

The issue of race in the South no longer is exclusively focussed on blacks. Recent bursts of immigration–both legal and illegal–have brought to the scene Hispanics,  Asians, Indians and even Germans.  Just recently, South Carolina elected its first Sikh governor. Who knows where the race issue will lead? Only time will tell. One thing is for sure; race will always affect the South–regardless of which people group is in the spotlight.

 

 

The Origin and Development of Slavery in the South

The concept and practice of slavery have been around since time of the Old Testament, which means slavery could be at least 6,000 years old. However, slavery in the Old Testament and that of the 1600-1800′s were not the same form of slavery. Bible-time slavery was based on debts, crimes or prisoners of war–which gave the master the right to demand lifelong servitude from the offender.

The first time slavery was based on race appears to have been through the European sugar industry–primarily in Great Britain, though Portugal and other European nations took part as well. Slavery on the basis of race came from the European association of blackness with depravity and sin. Europeans also viewed Blacks as inferior biological beings who needed to be Christianized and civilized.

The slave trade of Europe eventually reached the colonies in America in the 1700′s. Before black slaves, colonists used Indians as slaves and blacks as indentured servants. Some indentured servants were poor whites from Europe. The attitudes of racism and white supremacy eventually gave blacks the exclusive place in society as slaves or “property.”

Life as a black slave was not at all a pleasant one. Though most Southerners treated their slaves with care and respect, the motive usually one of preserving a property investment. Because slaves were highly valuable and very expensive, many whites treated them well for the sake of not damaging their investment. Even though some Christian whites made special efforts to evangelize blacks, the slaves were never seen as equals in society and were ultimately the legal property of a superior white master.

The work was hard and tedious, but the worst aspect of slave life was the absence of freedom. A slave was allowed no freedom, education, no rights, no termination of employment and no guarantee of honored marriages or family ties. Black families were often split at slave auctions due to their high cost. Marriages were never final or secure because they were not legally recognized by white owners and could  be terminated the instant an owner sold one of the spouses.

Slaves were allowed a few privileges.  Some could grow their own gardens for extra food; some could attend church–but only seated in the rear or the balcony. Because of their value to whites, many slaves were better provided for than Northern free employees. Slaves were fed, clothed and housed. Though slave provisions were modest compared to their white masters, blacks had more security than most industrial workers in the North did.

The main crops harvested by slaves were rice, indigo, cotton and tobacco. Slavery proved to be highly profitable for Southerners; aside from minor costs of owning slaves, the income on a slave plantation was most agreeable to whites. Slavery was the foundation of the South’s economy and would never be easily ended or relinquished.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of slavery is its entanglement with evangelical Christianity. For whites, Christianity was mostly a convenient way to make slaves obedient, submissive to white supremacy and hard workers. Passages in Philemon were utilized (out of context) to teach slaves that running away was a sin and that blacks had a Scriptural obligation to work hard for life under their white masters.

Many slave owners made sure their slaves were well acquainted with Christianity. They often invited white ministers to hold services on the plantations specifically for the slaves. Though some whites sincerely cared for the slaves’ souls, most used it to gain leverage over the slaves. Sadly, many verses were misused by whites to gain spiritually supported dominance over the blacks and hold them in psychological bondage in addition to physical enslavement.

Freedom for blacks was almost impossible until after the Civil War. Before slavery was abolished, the only successful means of escape was to receive aid from the Underground Railroad. But even an escaped slave fled the South, there were just as many enemies in the North who might return them out of racist hate or desire for reward money. Federal legislation gave no protection to the escaped slave–therefore leaving escapees to live in constant fear and insecurity.

Institutional race Slavery was a black mark on the entire human race, not only the South, but the nation. If we pin slavery on the South alone, we display ignorance of the Historical record and fact. Racism towards blacks was not exclusive to the South; it was a nation-wide problem.

 

The grade of “B” was received from Dr. Carl Abrams in “The History of the South” class at BJU 2010.

 

The Peculiar Institution

THE SOUTH

“The Peculiar Institution”

An analysis of historical defenses for Southern slavery

Kenneth Willis

12/6/2010

The purpose of this paper is to observe the writings of three historical authors who describe, defend and endorse their “peculiar institution” slavery. We will examine three themes of slavery: the financial issue, the legal question and moral dilemma. The authors we will examine are Robert L. Dabney, John C. Calhoun and Ulrich B. Phillips.

All three authors agree on the vital role slaves played in Southern economy. Cotton was king and cotton demanded slaves. Dabney argues that slavery was the one factor that kept the South on par with the industrial might of the North. He asserts that Northern attacks on slavery were attacks on the South’s welfare. He said the North was “sectional animosity and rival interests” (Dabney 11-12.) Calhoun saw no future for the South without slavery. He regarded it as “an extensive and profitable market” that stimulated the economy. He vehemently believed that the removal of slavery would destroy shipping and commercial interests of the South, regardless of whether the states owned slaves or not (Calhoun 528.) Calhoun saw slavery and prosperity as synonymous. To remove black labor was a direct assault on Southern whites (Calhoun 473, 582-83.)  Phillips is the most emotionally removed and less biased of the three authors, and writes in a more observational manner. Still, Phillips admits the necessity of slaves to the South. Phillips said the slave trade was the most prosperous industry in its day and was “not shunned by sinner or saint.” He notes that Negroes were much cheaper than any other form of labor and were much more suited for the climate (Phillips 161.) All three authors, having admitted the financial vitality of slavery, argue for it as a Southern necessity.

In regards to the legality of slavery, Phillips does admit to the legality of the institution, but chose to focus on the unfairness of the law to the slaves themselves. He notes that though the law forbade “cruel treatment,” there were tremendous loopholes. For example, “the rape of a female slave was not a crime, but a mere trespass upon the master’s property.” Slaves were only regarded as legal property, not as human beings (Phillips 162-3.) Phillips also notes that slaves had no rights and were not even permitted to learn how to read or write due to white fears that literate slaves might question the system. Phillips notes that “slaves were seen as “persons dangerous to the social order” of things and as a result, many legal actions were taken to ensure the Negro never rose to endanger the interests of whites, both North and South of the Mason-Dixie Line (Phillips 161-63.) Dabney argues extensively for the Constitutional legality of slavery. First noting that slavery was well established long before birth of the United States (Dabney 62,) Dabney asserts that the Constitution guaranteed the rights to own slaves and gave blacks no rights at all. Dabney considers fact that Union legally was defined as all land possessed by the United States valid proof that slavery was legal; he argues that since all United States after the Revolution was legally defined as slave territory, all the South is therefore in legal concordance with the Constitution and the law (Dabney 69.) Also, with a great deal of passion, Dabney argues that slavery was practiced legally in the North and the South, but was made by the North to appear as a solely Southern issue. He wrote, “The North acts and speaks as if only the South owned slaves.” And, “the North tried to propagate slavery as exclusive to the South (Dabney 11, 61.)  Dabney elaborates profoundly on the reality of Northern and abolitionist propaganda and the unfair blame lay on the South while simultaneously ignoring the reality of national slavery. He says “abolitionists should criticize and accuse all slave societies equally, not only the South” (Dabney 11.) Despite Dabney’s profound writing on the legality of slavery, no other author assumed more concrete Constitutional validity for slavery than John C. Calhoun. He saw as a “high constitutional right” (Calhoun 520.) Calhoun’s hard assumption of slavery’s constitutionality might explain his comparative silence of the subject to Dabney’s prolific writing on the issue.

Finally, and most controversial, is the moral dilemma of African bondage. Phillips begins his assessment of slavery by noting that blacks were originally “imported” as indentured slaves, before theofficial establishment of slavery in the United States (Phillips 170.) Phillips acknowledges the European origins of slavery and does not lay blame on the South, but on the nation as a whole. He then notes that slaves were brought to Southern plantations to be purged of their heathen past in polygamy, human sacrifice and cannibalism (Phillips 188.) He admits the fact that Negroes were indirectly refined by Christian influence in America, predominantly in the South. He says, “they [Negroes] were heathen brought to Christian land to attain eternal bliss by way of lifelong labor” (Phillips 161.) John C. Calhoun sidestepped, as did Phillips, the aspect of slavery’s Biblical validity. He argued only for the practical morality of it. Calhoun thought that owning slaves did not at all make a man evil as long as he treated them decently. “I am a Southern man and a slaveholder—a kind and merciful one I trust—and none the worse for being a slaveholder” (Calhoun 520.) Calhoun believed that slavery was good for the Negro. He argued that bringing together two different civilizations of opposing races, origins, distinguished by color and other physical and intellectual differences to be a positive thing (Calhoun 474.) Calhoun also believed slavery was good for Southern whites (Calhoun 518.) Calhoun gave the argument that Southern slavery had elevated the Negro to a level of refinement and dignity unknown to past South Africans. He said that the Africans “had never existed so comfortably, respectably and civilized as in the South” (Calhoun 467.) Calhoun viewed the Negro as an inferior race—uncouth and in dire need of civilized refinement. Calhoun believed the South was treating slaves better than most peasants of Europe. He repeatedly challenged his congressional opponents to “compare the Southern slave with European poor houses” (Calhoun 474.) He believed the position of the Negro slave so superior to factory in the North that he could not imagine how the North could attack the institution. He believed the lowest slave was better off than any Northern factory employee and believed the slave-master relationship was infinitely superior to the employee-employer relationship (Calhoun 563-64.) In relation to the national argument of slavery, Calhoun defended the morality of the institution by arguing that it brought stability to the South to which the North could never hope to compare. The stability Calhoun spoke of referred not only to finances and economics, but referred to the role of white supremacy as a positive influence over the inferior Negro. Calhoun saw abolitionists from the North as enemies of the South seeking to free the Negro and upset the balance of social order, even to reverse that social order (Calhoun 475.) In Calhoun’s mind, the removal of slavery would destroy the South and in turn, the nation. “The day that the balance between the two…is destroyed, is a day that will not be far removed from political revolution, anarchy civil war and widespread disaster” (Calhoun 516.) Robert Lewis Dabney saw the issue of slavery as one justified morally and Biblically. Like Calhoun, Dabney believed the North had isolated the issue of slavery exclusively to the South and abolitionist efforts to remove the institution were only for political and malicious reasons. He was appalled at the manner in which “the Christianityand philanthropy of our day should have given so disproportionate an attention to the evils of African slavery” (Dabney 9.) Blaming the origin of modern slavery on Europe, Dabney argued extensively that the South was not to blame for the institution. He noted the English as the original nation to legally consider slaves as “property” (Dabney 62.) Dabney argued that Southern slavery was the world’s most refined and justifiable version of slavery ever conceived. Dabney compared Southern slavery to that of European nations and said it was comparatively mild and even used the Southern version of slavery as the model for the rest of Europe to follow (Dabney 10.) He also argued that slavery had been the greatest good ever performed for Negros. He believed it had removed them from a barbaric, heathen environment and introduced them to civility and Christianity (Dabney 297.) Abolitionists were, in Dabney’s mind, destructive to the established social order of the South, American government and Christianity. To remove slavery would have been to Dabney as a catastrophic destruction of American society (Dabney 6.) Dabney turned to the Bible as the final authority on slavery, and found it quite agreeable. “Let us appeal then to the Bible to learn the moral character of Domestic Slavery” (Dabney 94.) The common argument hurled against him by the Christian abolitionists of his time was that slavery violated Scripture by consigning a Negro’s soul to a white master. Dabney responded multiple times in his book by defining slavery as “the obligations of the slave to labor for life, without his own consent, for the master.” Dabney also asserted that nowhere in Scripture did he find evidence that the owner had 5rights to the Negro’s soul. Dabney argued that the white master owned only the slave’s labor, not his soul (Dabney 94.) Dabney based the scriptural justification for slaves on his assumption from Genesis that Isaac legally owned slaves. He believed other Bible passages legally defined slavery as property of the master (Dabney 97-98.) Dabney viewed the slave-master relationship as perfectly lawful and right, per Scripture. He also argued that slavery was divinely sanctioned through the “Curse of Canaan.”Slavery was “appointed by God as the punishment of, and remedy for…the peculiar moral degradationof a part of the [human] race” (Dabney 100-103.) Dabney also goes to the New Testament for supporting slavery. He argues the New Testament epistles confirm the continuity of slavery even under the New Covenant because Paul instructed the Church how to treat their slaves (Dabney 162-163.) In review, Dabney viewed slavery as Biblically authorized and good for both the Negro and society. Phillips admits the legality and vitality of slavery, but also acknowledges the abuses of slavery.Calhoun asserts the absolute necessity of slavery to the South, its constitutionality and its moral effect on the entire nation, especially the South.

 

Works Cited

“Life and Labor In The Old South” – Ulrich B. Phillips (1941)

“Union And Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun” – Ross. M. Lence (1992)

“A Defense of Virginia And The South” – Robert L. Dabney (1867)

Destined to Conflict

The following essay was my first test in “History of the South” this year. The question was to examine and explain the heritage and mindset of the South, contrast it with the North and explain why the two regions were destined to conflict.

Introduction

Even previous to the American Revolution, there has always been two very different heritages and mindsets of the North and the South. Let’s observe the heritage of each region and then move onto each region’s mindset. It is the thesis of this essay that these two region’s differences made future conflict, whether political or militarily inevitable.

The Northern Heritage

The North was essentially founded by Protestants (Puritans) who sought religious freedom and an opportunity to reform society with implementing laws, morals and priorities that focussed on godly living and a heavily Reformed religious backdrop. These Protestants made their priorities church, family and eventually education.

Before the first Pilgrims set foot at Plymouth, the establishment of a formal government was already heavily on their minds. The North has always seen itself as the political leader/region of the North American continent. Northerners have generally always held to Federalist political view–meaning they believed in compromise among colonies or states for the larger benefit of the nation . Often, the North has never made huge distinction between their region and the nation . Their leaders have always considered the North as the nation and not so much as a region of that nation.

Also important to note is that the North has always dominated in industry and mass production where the South has come nowhere near such large scale industry or production. This remains so in many senses even into the present day United States.

The Southern Heritage

The South, while now regarded as vastly more religiously influenced and receptive than the North, was not originally so. Jamestown, Virginia was not loaded with devout Christians seeking religious sanctuary; if one came to Jamestown, he was most likely interested in financial profit. The priorities of the South have historically been agriculture, local government and self interests. While Southerners have never lacked national patriotism–for the nation’s greatest patriots have been from the South–they felt an even stronger tie and dominating obligation to their local area or state.

The family and religion were not originally priorities. Family and church would not become key until after the Great Awakening. The first Southerners were mostly business-minded people and indentured servants. Slavery did not begin to take hold until the early days surrounding the Revolution. Slavery would evolve primarily by how economic it would prove to be for Southerners. Though many Northerners agreed with and participated in the slave trade, the South made slavery far more rewarding and institutionalized.

Note:  The vast differences, and I would feel comfortable calling them “polar opposites,” of the North and South almost guaranteed from the beginning an unavoidable conflict between Northern and Southern interests. While the North argued from strong, central government, the South cried “small government with severely limited power.  While the South argued for strict interpretation of the Constitution, the North was inclined to favor a more liberal and relative interpretation. Quite frankly, I am confounded about how the Civil War did not occur earlier than it did. It almost did occur between the Tariff dispute between president Andrew Jackson and South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun. (Great for further reading on the South / North conflict.)

Contrasting Mindsets of the North and South

The precursory events leading up the Civil War are often blamed solely on slavery. While slavery cannot be ignored or minimized, there were much larger issues under the “iceberg tip” of slavery. While slavery is the thing most easily recognizable to the casual reader and student of American History, a deeper study will show the true battle to be the interpretation and application of the United States Constitution. The South believed that if the Federal government got rid of slavery–which the Constitution gave no power to do–they could then usurp any power they fancied. Also worth noting is that had slavery been abolished instantly, the Southern economy would have been completely devastated–almost without Northern sympathy. Southern livelihood depended on agriculture, which meant labor, which in turn meant slaves; remove the slaves, remove the labor and derail the economy. Even though many Southerners saw the evil of slavery and truly felt guilt over it, they could not find a solution to instantly abolish it without self-destructing the economy. The North was viewed much like another Great Britain and King George III, for the North repeatedly ignored Southern concerns and interests and passed legislation that continued to hurt the South while helping the North or “benefiting the nation.” The South never saw national compromise as part of their constitutional obligation and rightly so. Northern attempts to ban slavery in the South were seen as direct attacks on Southern economy and livelihood. Despite the moral dilemma of slavery, the South was completely right in perceiving the North as a threat to their livelihood and economy. The Civil war was simply the culmination of two conflicting mindsets. After many attempts by Southern politicians to appeal their case and beg the North to stop infringing on their rights and interests, the North only ignored them and tightened its grasp on the South. If the South did not take drastic action, her constitutionally guaranteed rights would only continue to slip away and the Constitution would be trampled over more and more. War was the last resort of the crisis; a crisis already fought with compromises, fiery speeches, literature and a growing Southern distrust of the North.

Conclusion

These polar opposites seemed destined for a great conflict in ideals–ultimately turning into a bloody Civil War; a war of ideals; a war of state’s rights; a war of Constitutional interpretation.

My Additional Remarks

From my study on this subject, I make the case that the central issue of American History has and always will be the interpretation of the United States Constitution. It was written by men who had fought against Great Britain for the right to have their own freedoms and liberties. No other document save the Holy Scriptures has been under more constant attack from within the United States. Ever since the ratification of the Constitution, liberal politicians and presidents have tried to interpret it loosely or disregard it altogether. Though the president swears an oath of allegiance to defend the Constitution, that oath is nothing more than a formality today. Even the current leader of out nation has violated this document tremendously, for by it, he should not even be allowed to become our leader or remain it. Even now with the immigration controversy between Arizona and the Federal government, the theme of state’s rights and Constitutional interpretation rings loud and clear. The Civil War did not end the state’s rights issue, it only intensified it and demonstrated the necessity of free Americans to stand, unto death, against those who would trample, ignore or even attempt to dissolve the United States Constitution.

I leave you with a quote:

“I love the Union, but I would rather leave the Union with my Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”

~Jefferson Davis.

The Real Problem With Americans

I just wanted to take a few minutes and, well…….vent my frustration; enjoy.

I realize that liberals and political minds of the left, ie. the Obamas, have never been proud of our country, until it places them in the most powerful position a human being can reach–the White House, but some of us have always been proud of our country. I for one, have always been quite proud of my country, with the exceptions of abortion, alcoholism, total rejection of the One, true God, etc., but I will admit that we as a nation do have some issues. I would like to talk about the worst one we do have; we are the most powerful, wealthy, successful, creative, determined, enduring and overcoming nation on Earth, yet we are also the most willingly ignorant! And the Christian church is not scoring much higher in this area.

I can’t help but laugh to myself when people ask how our nation could possibly be so messed up, while they simultaneously look up and admire people like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and others. Where has our knowledge of history gone? We look up to and admire people who are the antithesis of what American values promote. I will for example’s sake tell you about the great old chap we call “honest Abe.” Is it not romantic and ideal? A wonderful Illinois lawyer who never tells a lie and frees the slaves from the horrible Southerners and gave that tear-jerking address at Gettysburg Pennsylvania? Ah yes. It is so touching, but a horrible distortion of history. Being given the compliment of being like Honest Abe is not exactly a compliment. The man had virtually no regard for the U.S. Constitution. Hmm…….that sounds familiar to what I see on the news at night. He used the romantic idea of freeing the slaves–for whom he could not have cared less–as a means to encourage Northern men to feel a responsibility to “liberate” the captives.  (Check out Thomas Delorenzo’s book, “The Real Lincoln.”) He also refused to hear Confederate emissaries who  brought millions of dollars to pay for all Federal buildings and land in the South. He also deliberately ordered the replenishment of Fort Sumter just after being warned by Charleston, South Carolina’s Governor that any reinforcement of the fort would be considered an act of war. Lincoln fired the first “shots”, not the South. Abraham Lincoln did manage however to destroy many of our rights and freedoms supposedly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  The American Civil War was a high water mark for the beginning of a loss of personal and state freedom in the United States.  Every loss of freedom in the USA can be traced back to the first “moves” introduced by Abe Lincoln. On a side note, Maryland would have seceded as well, had Lincoln not suspended the right of Habeas Corpus and arrested those legislators who were going to vote for it.

I am not saying these things against Lincoln because I am a Southerner, I am saying them because I am a Historian.

This is just one of MANY examples of the American people believing propaganda and being sold a bill of goods. The truth is out there, but YOU have to find it. This is America; you have the right, at least for now, to be wrong and ignorant, or you can get in the books and WAKE UP.