|


Steve Scroggins
|
Steve Scroggins is a volunteer contributor to the Georgia
Heritage Council who lives in Macon.
EMAIL THIS
PRINT THIS
Share
|
Debunking the Saintly Yankee Myth – Commentary by Steve Scroggins, 4/15/11
In the April 15th Macon Telegraph, they published an editorial entitled, It's Time for Honesty (text below). I agree with the headline, but as you'll see below, some correction was needed to the thrust and ideas of the editorial. What follows is my response, followed by the text of the editorial.
Editors:
While the headline to your Apr. 15th editorial (“It’s Time for Honesty”) is certainly true, the body of the text definitely needs some rebuttal. It is the nationalist proponents of the modern Leviathan, the advocates of the welfare/warfare Empire, the elitist “central planners” and their “useful idiots” who have been “airbrushing” reality for a century and a half to create Lincoln mythology and the “saint yankee” myth.
Was white supremacy the prevailing attitude in the mid-19th century in ALL of America and Europe? Yes. It was. This is proven by the fact that Illinois and other northern states had passed laws prohibiting the residence of free blacks in their states… and by the fact that Union soldiers refused to serve in the same units with blacks. It was the nephew and grandson of Confederate soldiers, Harry S. Truman, who finally integrated the U.S. military after WWII.
Lincoln, in his 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas, made his white supremacist views widely known to contemporaries---but that is “airbrushed” away in history texts. For his entire career, Lincoln advocated "colonizing" (deporting) blacks outside the U.S. The nation of Liberia was established by Lincoln's efforts. We must acknowledge that it’s a little unfair to judge Lincoln and his contemporaries as “racists” by applying our modern attitudes to the 19th century world.
But that doesn't change the predominant facts about the war. The reasons for southern secession are NOT the same as the reasons for war. On this date 150 years ago (April 15, 1861), Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the south and force the southern states back into the union and to force collection of the recently doubled Morrill Tariff (passed March 2, 1861).
"[T]he Union ... will constitutionally defend and maintain itself... In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be
none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places
belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion,
no using of force against or among the people anywhere." --Abraham Lincoln, from inaugural address, March 4, 1861.
Lincoln had already declared war in his inaugural address March 4th. In it, he denied that states had the right to secede, even though the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution clearly reserve the right to states (not prohibited in the Constitution's body). Clearly, the right to secession was presumed (explicitly stated by New York, Virginia and Rhode Island) by the Framers and, more importantly, by the states in convention (representing their peoples) who ratified the Constitution.
Lincoln's 1861 Inaugural address also clearly stated that Lincoln had no intent, no inclination and no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed. He expressed his support for enshrining slavery in the Constitution with the Corwin Amendment which would permanently prohibit Congress from legislatively or constitutionally interfering with slavery.
Lincoln promised not to invade or attack anyone EXCEPT...EXCEPT to hold the forts and property of the U.S. government for the purpose of collecting tariffs. So, in essence, he was denying the right of secession and promising to invade the southern states and force them back into the union.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without
freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving
others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I
forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." --Abraham Lincoln, from
letter to Horace Greeley, Aug. 22, 1862
Over 16 months after the war began (Aug. 22, 1862), Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley of The New York Tribune, that slavery was not relevant to the war. He stated that his “paramount purpose” was to “preserve the union,” and that slavery had no bearing on the war effort. This was just days before the Emancipation Proclamation extended the offer, once again, to preserve slavery if the southern states would simply lay down their arms and return to the union. Right up to very near the end of the war, the south could have saved slavery by returning to the union. Independence was the southern purpose. It's the north that betrayed the principle of “consent of the governed” from the Declaration of Independence.
The U.S. Congress held the same purpose as Lincoln for the war. In the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution dated July 25, 1861 the U.S. Congress stated clearly and unambiguously that the purpose of the war was to "preserve the union" and "not to interfere with the domestic institutions of the states."
WHY did the South fight? The South fought in SELF DEFENSE. Duh!
If Lincoln's legions had not invaded the south and blockaded her ports, there would have been no war. The term "Civil War" is a ridiculous misnomer; the south had no intent to interfere with the government in D.C., nor any intent to seize the territory of states that did not freely join. It was a war for independence equally as justified as the colonies’ secession from Britain in 1776.
Even though no person died in the bombardment of Fort Sumter, Lincoln used it to whip up war fever in the North. As author Thomas DiLorenzo notes, the death toll from Fort Sumter was one horse. The death toll from Lincoln's reaction to Fort Sumter was 625,000 American soldiers dead, about 50,000 southern civilians (of all races) and thousands of horses. The U.S. garrison at Fort Sumter surrendered April 14th and was allowed to leave peacefully. On April 15th, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South... and that naked aggression directly induced four more states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas) to secede over principle rather than to condone the use of force to prevent secession.
The U.S. government could easily have purchased every slave by compensating the slave owners, and given every freed slave 40 acres and a mule and done so much cheaper than the cost of the war strictly in financial terms... and not counting the human cost. But as stated, the war was never about slavery -- it was always about preventing secession and southern independence.
"The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that
a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." --London Spectator, 1862
"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern
states." --Charles Dickens, 1862
The British press rightly called it a "fiscal quarrel" and they saw the “desire of the northern states for economic control of the southern states." Charles Dickens termed the North’s alleged crusade against slavery only so much “specious humbug.” Follow the money. It's always at the core of most wars.
The northern press had a significant number who expressed the sentiment to "let them go in peace" in December 1860 and early January of 1861. When the northern money-men leaned on the northern press and explained to them how the North lost and the South won economically by their independence, the northern editorial press did an about-face and called for war rather than letting the southern states leave in peace. Read the editorials of the northern press from February through April of 1861. It was about lost trade, money and tax revenues.
No other country on earth required a war to abolish slavery. America certainly didn't either. That war was “necessary” and that northern armies fought mainly to end slavery is the BIG LIE, the “saint yankee” myth. That the South fought mainly to “preserve slavery” is the flip side of that same lie. Such “comic book” mythology styled as “history” is infantile in its over-simplicity and it’s NOT supported by the historical record.
Brazil, a former Portuguese colony, abolished slavery in 1888 and did so without war. They were the last in the western hemisphere. Slavery would have ended in North America, most likely in the 19th century, without any war. Slavery would have ended here for economic reasons if not for moral ones.
Slavery continues today in parts of Africa and the Arab world. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next ten nations combined… and yet we ignore modern slavery and selectively target thugs who happen to rule over oil resources. Since America rose to super-power status after WWII and won the Cold War, America’s prudent and moral tradition of “non-interventionism” has gone by the wayside. Now few even blink when we bomb people for “humanitarian” reasons. The new Rome on the Potomac and the bloated welfare/warfare State, can trace its roots to the victory of Lincoln’s vandals in 1865.
Editorial board, perhaps if you educate yourselves, you could see that it's you who are not being honest about American history.
To add broader perspective, we must acknowledge that the African slave trade had world-wide participation from the 1440s to the 1870s. All were enslaved first by their African brothers, then they were sold to European and Arab merchants. Only about five percent or 500,000 of all African slaves transported across the Atlantic were brought to what is now the U.S.A., along the way building vast financial fortunes in New England ports like Providence, New Haven, Philadelphia and Boston. The others (some 11 to 12 million) were sold by their African brothers to traders and taken to Spanish, French, Portuguese and British holdings in the Caribbean and South America. Again, all those destinations abolished slavery without a bloody war.
For centuries, the chief export of Africa was human beings. We Americans and especially we southern Americans should have no monopoly on the guilt of allowing slavery or profiting from it. The British forced it on the American colonies in order to compete for the European tobacco and sugar markets. As the late journalist
Joseph Sobran wrote, “… it’s rather comical for American blacks to sentimentalize Africa and stress that they are ‘African Americans’ while cursing the Confederate flag as a symbol of slavery. Africa has a much better claim to be such a symbol.”
We Americans were relatively minor players on the vast stage of this morality play, notable only by the destruction and death we falsely attribute to its abolition---- and our continuing lies and mythology to disguise and distort an immoral war of conquest into a moral crusade to abolish slavery .
Honest people believe that we must study true history, without omission and without exaggeration. That is all the honest Southerner really wants. Slavery is a stain on HUMAN history. Your parroting of the SAINTLY YANKEE myths do not serve the greater good of education and Truth for all.
Steve Scroggins
"But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its defence on the other,
was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work. I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned
to the witness-stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery
that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country. As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty percent of her armies were
neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the
institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the
South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union." --General John B. Gordon, from
Reminiscences of the Civil War, page 19
"The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history... The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers
who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people,
should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against
self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves." --H.L. Mencken [emphasis added]
|
No other region of the country feels the weight of Civil War history as much as the South does. Our region is defined in part by that war, defeat and its aftermath, and we have embraced that history in a multitude of ways. And now, with the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, we need to admit that we have gotten a good bit of that history wrong.
Most of us have heard from our youth on up that the origins of the war did not lie in slavery but in the South’s defense of states’ rights against the federal government. It’s a comforting idea. It lets us untether the indisputable valor of our ancestors who took up arms for the Confederacy from the repugnance of fighting for slavery. But secession documents that enshrine the primacy of slavery to the antebellum Southern way of life blow that idea out of the water. Indeed, as historian David Von Drehle points out in a recent essay for Time magazine, the principals of the time were well aware of what was driving them to battle: slavery.
In the years since the war, the South has worked hard to airbrush this reality away, and in doing so has done itself a great harm. It has damaged its religion.
The South is a land of strong Christian aspirations, and much of its past and culture deals with the pursuit of a godly life. That pursuit, however, is undermined when it is touched by the struggle to reconcile the irreconcilable. One simply cannot in one breath gloss over the suffering of fellow humans or bury it under Lost Cause mythology and then in the next breath preach Christian morality. Trying to do so leads to a moral and intellectual incoherence that makes it frighteningly easy to nod one’s head at injustice.
The South is a land of a torn racial history, and though much progress has been made there is still much work to be done to heal those wounds. It won’t be done in a day, a year or a decade, but a good next step would be to honestly confront the origins of the Civil War and to begin to set aside our fixation on the Lost Cause.
-- John Parnell for the Editorial Board
www.macon.com/2011/04/15/1526240/its-time-for-honesty.html
|
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: that men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that
they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it
triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it be really established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by
the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in
principle---but only in degree---between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself
and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.
--Lysander Spooner, from his essay, No Treason, 1867 [emphasis added]
"It is a testament to the effectiveness of 140 years of government propaganda that a 308 page book filled with true facts about Lincoln could be
entitled "The Lincoln No One Knows." It is not a matter of a poorly-performing government education system but quite the opposite: The government
schools have performed superbly in indoctrinating generations of American school children with a pack of lies, myths, omissions, and falsehoods
about Lincoln and his war of conquest. As Richard Bensel wrote in Yankee Leviathan, any study of the American state should begin in 1865. The
power of any state ultimately rests upon a series of government-sponsored myths, and there is none more prominent than the Lincoln Myth."
--Thomas DiLorenzo, from The Unknown Lincoln
Related Links
Lincoln Mythology Is Born - Steve Scroggins 3/04/11
Lincoln Hypocrisy - Steve Scroggins 3/18/07
Looking for Lincoln Part 2 - Frank Conner 2/11/09
More Lincoln Myths Exposed - J.A. Davis
Slavery, Apologies & Duty - Steve Scroggins
Madison vs. Government Secrecy - Steve Scroggins
The Official, One and Only, PC Cause of the Civil War - Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Spooner’s Fiery Attack on Lincolnite Hypocrisy - Thomas J. DiLorenzo
The Unknown Lincoln - Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Confronting the Lincoln Cult - Thomas J. DiLorenzo
More Trouble for the Lincoln Cartel - Thomas J. DiLorenzo
King Lincoln Archive - LewRockwell.com
A Rare Lincoln Photo: Abe the Gay Entertainer - X-Files
Lincoln: America's Most Beloved Racial Supremacist - X-Files
Constitutional Futility - Thomas J. DiLorenzo
America's Worst Scandal: the 14th Amendment - J.A. Davis
Confusing 'Republican' and 'conservative' - J.A. Davis
The Mirage of 'National Unity' - Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Suggested Reading
The Real Lincoln : A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Amazon.com
This book totally exposes "Honest Abe" for all his usurpations of the Constitution and
dictatorial antics during his term. Great Read and very informative. $24.95 (hardcover)at most major bookstores. Now in paperback.
Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Amazon.com
Mr. Lincoln Goes to War By William Marvel
Mariner Books, 2007; available at Amazon
[ Review ]
The South Was Right! by James Ronald Kennedy, Walter Donald Kennedy
Amazon.com
This book is a MUST read. Published by Pelican Press, Gretna, LA.
The Rise And Fall of the Confederate Government
by Jefferson Davis
Amazon.com
Paperback edition Published by Da Capo Press. Available at Chapter 11; Price app. $25.00 for
2-vol. set. Davis spent the last years of his life gathering information for this Tome. He goes into Great
detail on all aspects of the War and reconstruction. He also has many letters and reports which gives the
reader a different outlook than what is taught in "history class". The book is not an easy read but should be
in every Southerner's Library.
Was Jefferson Davis Right?
by James Ronald Kennedy &
Walter Donald Kennedy (Pelican Press)
A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States
by Alexander H. Stephens
When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams
(New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000) [ Excellent Review ]
War Crimes Against Southern Civilians
by Walter Brian Cisco
(Pelican Publishing Company (April 2007)) [ Review on Amazon ]
The Sovereign States by James J. Kilpatrick
(Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1957) [ The Meaning of Federalism || The Northern States' Rights Tradition ]
Is Davis A Traitor?
by
Albert Taylor Bledsoe (1879 Advocate
Publishing House, St. Louis)
More Suggested Reading
Steve Scroggins lives in Macon and contributes most of GHC's parody
and political cartoons and graphics.
EMAIL THIS
PRINT THIS
Share
Like this? SIGN UP now
for weekly email updates in your inbox !!
Contribute now to help us maintain this website and carry on our mission!
Editorials from Northern Newspapers
Many newspapers favored allowing the southern states to peacefully leave as the one below by Greeley.
But later in February and March of 1861, the sentiments changed...
"If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession of 3,000,000 colonists in 1776, I do not see why the Constitution ratified by the same
men should not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of the Southerners from the Federal Union in 1861...
We have repeatedly said, and we once more insist that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that government
derives its power from the consent of the governed is sound and just, then if the Cotton States, the Gulf States or any other States choose to form
an independent nation they have a clear right to do it...
The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless; and we do not see how one party can have a right to do what another
party has a right to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof;
to withdraw from the Union is another matter. And when a section of our Union resolves to go out, we shall resist any coercive acts to keep
it in. We hope never to live in a Republic where one section is pinned to the other section by bayonets ." --Horace Greeley, New York Tribune
[ full editorial 12/17/1860 ]
"The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws,
is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester [England] can send his goods into the Western States
through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage...If the importations of
the counrty are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to
our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other
routes and other outlets. With the lost of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many huindred
millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers...Once
at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free. The process is perfectly simple... The commercial bearing of
the question has acted upon the North...We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer
an abstract question---one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but
of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.....We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched."
---New York Times March 30, 1861
"The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing....It is very
clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No---we MUST NOT "let the South go." "
----Union Democrat , Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861
From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?"
"That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad....
If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we
shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.....Allow rail road iron
to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and
not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railroads would be supplied from the southern ports.
---New York Evening Post March 12, 1861, recorded in Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965, pp. 598-599.
|
Copyright © 2003-2012, GeorgiaHeritageCouncil.org
Georgia Heritage Council | 2121 Hollywood RD
Atlanta, GA 30318 Email:
|



|