You believe what a Southern, South Carolinian newspaper said?"The army of the North fights for national ambition, fanatical hate and the profits of Southern trade. The army of the South fights to avert from the Southern people a tyranny most hideous and most abhorred. We must nerve ourselves to hear of a day of carnage. The attack has probably been made by our troops. They must carry the enemy's earthworks with the bayonet. The loss may, and probably will, be fearful. But, if we triumph, the victory will be worth the cost. Never was cause more just and holy than ours. The patriot owes his life to his country in the hour of her extremity; and, while we strike for independence, we must be willing, ungrudgingly, to pay the price." -Charleston Mercury, June 27, 1862
No one claims that slavery was limited to the South and was not a national disgrace. What is asserted is that while some states saw fit to end the practice through at least a lengthy, gradual process, other states chose to cling to the practice and even destroy the Union and establish a new nation so that they could practice slavery in perpetuity and extend its reach.
We should, indeed, recognize the national 'sin'; but we ought not forget that some failed to see it as a 'sin', but rather saw it as "a positive good".
Did the various royals of Europe recognize Maximilian I as a real emperor? In the royal pecking order, do not emperors out rank kings and queens? Would not King of Mexico been a more honest title?
Interesting quote. Do you have a more detailed source for it..? As in, the date, & possibly a photo of the article in print..? I've briefly looked, & haven't been able to find it.Lincolns eloquent reply to the Baltimore Riots:
"Protesting that Maryland soil should not be ‘polluted’ by the feet of soldiers marching against the South. The President had but one reply: ‘We must have troops, and as they can neither crawl under Maryland nor fly over it, they must come across it.'" as reported by the Baltimore Sun.
Disfranchisement, confiscation of lands, extermination. All of these things were either done or threatened.Thanks for your response.
Not quite sure how relevant this excerpt from the Charleston Mercury (the newspaper of secessionist Robert B. Rhett) is to the discussion. However, it prompts an interesting question: just what was that "tyranny most hideous and most abhorred"? A revolution where the slaves would become the equal of the slaveholder?
The North, found a population of White, Starving, Cheaper Replacements. Is that fact, not important? The North participated in every aspect of Southern Slavery. NYC became the Center of the Illegal Mid-Atlantic Slave Trade. Approximately 1.6 Million Negroes were trafficked, during this period. Northern Merchants participated in the Chinese Opium Trade. Part of that Trade was Trafficking poor, starving Chinese to Cuba and Peru. They were chained down in ships. At least as brutal as the Mid Atlantic Slave Trade or Worse. Is none of this, Important? Is the Exclusion of Events, Truth. I hear the term Truth a lot, just don’t see the Evidence of it. The North got rid of their Negroes and Slave owning Business. Which yes, they wanted no more Negroes. However the North never, Stop their involvement in Slavery. Does it make someone a Lost Causer, if they want to know these things? Should we not expect to learn, the whole story, instead of someone’s white washed version? Slavery is United States History, not just Southern History.
That's fine and dandy except they were on the side that said things like this-1) If post-Confederates would have treated African Americans fairly and equally...
Disfranchisement, confiscation of lands, extermination. All of these things were either done or threatened.
Imagine someone today in the US Congress threatening to exterminate an entire population.
"The adoption of the measures I advocated at the outset of the war, the arming of the negroes, the slaves of the rebels, is the only way left on earth in which these rebels can be exterminated. They will find that they must treat those States now outside of the Union as conquered provinces and settle them with new men, and drive the present rebels as exiles from this country....They have such determination, energy, and endurance, that nothing but actual extermination or exile or starvation will ever induce them to surrender to this Government."
—Thaddeus Stevens, U.S. House of Representatives, January 8, 1863
That's fine and dandy except they were on the side that said things like this-
"The adoption of the measures I advocated at the outset of the war, the arming of the negroes, the slaves of the rebels, is the only way left on earth in which these rebels can be exterminated. They will find that they must treat those States now outside of the Union as conquered provinces and settle them with new men, and drive the present rebels as exiles from this country....They have such determination, energy, and endurance, that nothing but actual extermination or exile or starvation will ever induce them to surrender to this Government. —Thaddeus Stevens, U.S. House of Representatives, January 8, 1863
I love Robert Penn Warren but we need to clarify. He won a Pulitzer for his novel All the King’s Men and two Pulitzer’s for his poetry.
For further clarification: I was not implying deception on your part. I just know that a lot of younger members might be unfamiliar with Penn Warren and, because of the subject of the thread, might think that his Pulitzers were in the field of history.Thanks for your comments but I never said that he won a Pulitzer for his book on the Civil War. However, he is the only writer ever to win Pulitzer Prizes for both a novel and works of poetry.
Threatening to exterminate an entire population is righteous anger?despite such voicing such declarations of righteous anger, there was no extermination.
Hundreds of thousands were disfranchised. Lands were confiscated.Former Confederates were bright back into the Union with their rights intact.