The South Was Right!

Nothing in America has stirred, and continues to stir more passion than the institution of slavery and the Civil War. When the word is mentioned, rational thought disappears and only shows again when the Souths has been thoroughly flailed, kicked and punished for the sin of slavery. Yankee myth maintains the entire buden for this should be carried by us...the people of the South. We are to believe the "Civil War" was fought by the noble and freedom-loving Yankees to free their black brothers from cruel Southern slavery. They attempt to justify their own criminal invasion of the South by claiming that the South was fighting to protect its slave property. Only those who accept this myth of history WITHOUT questioning and those who refuse to read impartial histoical evidence succumb to this shallow thinking.

The North was co-equally responsible for the system of slavery. They wer less humanitarian in their treatment of these slaves too. Just to provide some proof...here are some important questions?

1. Who first legalized slavery in America?
2. Who first attempted to prohibit the importation of slaves?
3. How was slavery abolished in the North?
4. How were the freed blacks treated in the North?

1. The Northern Colony of Massachusetts. When the abolition of slavery is mentioned, most people think of Lincoln, radical Republicans, and the terrorist John Brown. But long before these extremists spoke, the state of VIRGINIA had already gone on record as opposing the African slave trade. By an act of the Gen. Assy of Va, with Patrick Henry as Governor, the state outlawed the slave trade here, in my home town of VA. This was on October 5, 1778, 10 years before Massachusetts and 30 years before the British Parliament acted on the trade. This law also stipulated that any slave brought into the state contrary to the law would be then and forevermore FREE. And it wasn't even the first time VA had tried to stop it. This law was passed after VA had declared itself independent (seceded) from Great Britain. In the months before Thomas Jefferson (a Virginian) writing the Declaration of Independence, stated that one of the reasons the people of VA felt compelled to secede from British Gov't was that the British had forced the state to endure the slave trade. He stated that the King had "refused us permission to exclude by law" the slave trade. James Madison (another Virginian) said this, "The British Gov't constantly checked the attempts of VA to put a stop to this infernal traffick. Throughout the South, the move was on to end the slave trade, but the commercial interest of first England and then New England put a stop to this. After the American War for Independence was won, it would be the commercial interest of the Noth, allied with two Southern states, that would take the lead in protecting the slave trade. Years later, the blue-clad soldiers from the North would march down South to free the slaves that THEY had sold into bondate. While they sang, Glory, Glory Hallelujah, the very money they made from the slaves was in their pockets. In other words, it is wrong to own one, but ok to sell them. It was only after the South had seceded from the union that a clear and unqualified prohibition was written into the Constitution outlawing the slave trade. It was not the United States Constitution that made the first clear and unqualified prohibition against the slave trade, but the Confederate States Constitution.

2. I just explained who...The Southern State of Virginia. But how was it abolished? We are told of the Underground Railroad stories...how it led to the poor, downtrodden slave from the Southern land of slavery to the Northern land of freedom and equality. You know, the righteous North struggling to improve the plight of man and save the glorious Union while fighting off vicious attacks of hate-filled Southerners!? Yankee myth, Yankee lies and Yankee propaganda. At the signing of the Dec of Ind...there were slaves in every American state. Not one Northern state rushed to free its slaves after signing it. Slavery was never very profitable in the North...and if its one thing they had a eye for, it was profits. The Northern Slaveholders property rights were protected by the states, because no law was ever passed that granted freedom to a person already in slavery. (something they must have forgotten to do when they came down South). If the north was the land of equality and freedom, why did it not just do away with slavery in one quick step? If slavery was wrong in the South, it was just a wrong in the North. The answer? The North used the method of granting "gradual" freedom to the slaves and their unborn for 2 reasons...one was greed and the other was racism. They weren't deprived of the slaves they owned at the time the law passed. And it did not prohibit the slave owners from removing their property from the state to be sold in other parts of the country. Which they did. It allowed them to rid themselves of the people they didn't want in Northern society. In 1788, eight years after Massachusetts started its judicial emancipation, it passed a law ordering every black, mulatto, or Indian who came into the state and remained two months to be whipped publicly. And was repeated if they didn't leave. It remained in effect until 1834, by which time it had done its work of purging Massachusetts of the "undesirables".

3. As I said, "By a system of gradual emancipation that allowed the Northern Slave Owners to remove their property to the South, sell the slaves, and thereby rid themselves of the human responsibility while making a handsome profit.

4. They weren't allowed to vote or testify in a court of law. Even in Lincoln's home state if IL, blacks were banned from moving into the state! And common sense would tell you that if they were treated so much better, then the rate of population would increase in blacks. According to the 1860 census records, the % of increase in the black population in the South was 23%. The increase in the North was 1.7%. The returns from the 1850 census show that of white Northerners and Southerners, one person in every 1,000 was either deaf, dumb, blind, insane or idiotic. For the free blacks of Yankeedom, one in every 506 was afflicted with one of these conditions. If the North was such a better place for blacks, then it would be natural to assume that the Southern blacks would be in worse condition. Not according to the 1850 census records. It demonstrated that only one in 1,464 had a condition as described above. the Negro slave in the South was in a better mental and physical condition than his free black brother in the North. Here's a better example:

(ratio of persons with disability)

White Northern AND Southerner 1 out of every 1,000
Free Northern black 1 out of every 506
Southern slave 1 out of every 1,464

There is enough guilt to go around. The blacks in Africa who kidnapped and sold their own kind, the Yankee merchants who traded rum and guns for black slaves in the North and South America all deserve - yet do not receive - the larger portion of the guilt. Why is it that Southerners have been singled out for criticism and guilt? Because the North needed this myth and other lies to justify its war of conquest, and to continue its oppression of the legitimate rights of the Southern people. In both the North and the South, there were different views on the issue of slavery and how to end it. The only difference is that the North had the opportunity to end slavery without disrupting its economy or social fabric. This was a luxury the Yankee never allowed the South. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were two of the quickes to abolish the idea of slavery. They sought to uplift and educate the slaves to make them ready for freedom. Just to show those who believed that black people could never be made ready for freedom.

If you want proof of just how successful the Yankee myth has been, just go into a Southern classroom. On the wall, you'll probably see a picture of Abraham Lincoln. You'll probably be required to recite or memorize the Gettysburg Address! But, ask the teacher where the picture of Jefferson Davis is, and why you're not studying his inaugural address, and you'll get a quizzical look. Most teachers who teach our children about the Great Emancipator have never even read the proclamation! If they did, they'd find that it was a self-styled war measure. Its purpose was to hide the invasion of the South with morality. Real good propaganda ploy to convince England and France not to recognize the Southern nation. The truth is that Lincoln's so-called Emancipation Proclamation wasn't designed to free slaves, it only declared free those slaves who were held "within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States". In other words, he freed those he had no control over. But what about those he did have control over and could have declared free? Not a word is said about these slaves. The 6 parishes of Louisiana that were at that time under Yankee control were specifically excluded from this great document of freedom, as were the 48 counties designated as West Virginia! For the Lincoln lovers, I remind you that the Yankee General Ulysses S. Grant's wife held personal slaves at the beginning of the war. They were freed, not by Lincolns proclamation, but by the 13th amendment passed after the end of the war. Grants excuse for not freeing his slaves was "good help is so hard to come by these days". Lincoln declared free those slaves he had no power to free, and left in bondage those he could have freed! Honest Abe, the great humanitarian and emancipator! He was guilty of the two unforgivable sins of modern times - a belief in white supremacy and a belief in a system of apartheid! His ideas were are a well-kept secret. But, worth repeating...Lincoln said, "I will say, than, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qulaifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races...I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race".

Yet, we, the Southerners are the ones who are accused of these ideologies, yet, none of the writings or speeches of any Southern General, leader or Jefferson Davis himself, mention anything of the kind.

As far as apartheid, Lincoln was planning a system of geographical separation similar to what has been practiced in South Africa. Here's another comment he made in a debate with Stephen A. Douglas:

"Such separation if effected at all, must be effected by colonization:...what colonizatioin most needs is a hearty willl...Let us be brought to believe that it is morally right, and at the same time favorable to, or at least not against, our interests to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."

The difference between Yankee myth and reality. He is also sometimes called "Protector of Liberty". The dictatorial power of Lincoln is evidenced when he suspended the writ of habeas corpus and then moved to silence his critics in the North not in the South. (at that time Southerners were goverened by one who was governing with the consent of the governed - what a novel idea! Perhaps we should try this again!)

Some writers place the number of Lincolns political prisoners as high as 40,000. They were held indefinitely, without even know what, if any, charges were brought against them and without receiving bail or an attorney. He imprisoned people he hated. And he rewarded men who were conducting a campaign of terror against the Southern civilians. We were forced to endure rape, robbery, pillaring and plundering, all at the hands of the US military personnel. These acts were very well known in Washington, yet they continued thoughout his presidency. If he had been a truly compassionate human being, then he would have tried to prevent this suffering. Needless suffering. Not accidental civilian casualties as a result of war. These were intentional crimes committed on Southerners who were innocent, but Southern. Lincoln, also, btw, was also the only American president who personally ordered the mass execution of Americans whose guilt couldn't be positively determined! In 1862, several tribes of Native Americans revolted against his policies. General John Pope was sent to Minnesota to put down the uprising. After the end of the hostilities, Pope sent a message to Lincoln that he had ordered more than 300 warriors executed by hanging. The whites of Minnesota were wanting the execution of the Indians. Lincoln knew that the "trial" had been a sham, but he also knew that he needed the white votes. His "political" compromise was to make a blood offering to the whites there. As a toaken to appease the whites, he selected 39 Indian prisoners at random, to be executed. He carried Minnesota in the next election, but the price was paid by Native Americans.